《紧急仲裁员决定书》再次获得香港高等法院的认可和执行
The Emergency Arbitrator’s Decision was Again Recognized and Enforced by the High Court of Hong Kong
关键词
Key Words
紧急仲裁员 临时措施 香港执行
Emergency Arbitrator, Interim Measures, Enforcement of Hong Kong Courts
审理要旨
Principle of the Trial
紧急仲裁员程序的启动需从程序与实体的角度予以考量。程序上，当事人提出紧急仲裁员程序申请时，仲裁机构会审核该程序的可适用性如机构的管辖权、书面申请的提交等，并指定紧急仲裁员。实体上，紧急仲裁员作出临时措施决定时主要会考虑该程序的申请人在案件裁决结果中实体胜诉的可能性、临时措施的必要性与紧迫性以及临时措施的可执行性等。同时，在必要时，申请人还需提供一定的担保，避免临时措施的滥用。紧急仲裁员作出临时措施的决定之后，当事人可以在符合执行地国家或者地区的法律规定时，向有管辖权的法院申请强制执行。
The initiation of emergency arbitrator procedure shall be considered from both a procedural and a substantive perspective. When the party concerned applies for emergency arbitrator procedure, the arbitral institution will review the applicability of the procedure, including the institution's jurisdiction, submission of written applications, etc., and appoint an emergency arbitrator. When deciding on interim measures, the emergency arbitrator will mainly consider the possibility of the claimant substantively winning the case, and the necessity, urgency and enforceability of interim measures. At the same time, if necessary, the claimant shall provide certain guarantees to avoid the abuse of interim measures. After the emergency arbitrator makes a decision on interim measures and when the measures comply with the law of the country or region where the enforcement will be made, the party concerned can apply to courts with jurisdiction for enforcement.
典型意义
Significance
紧急仲裁员制度是国际商事仲裁中的一项重要制度。与传统诉讼和仲裁中的保全作用相同，在一方当事人可能面临系争财产被转移或重要证据灭失等紧急情况下，紧急仲裁员发布临时措施来保持当事人法律或者事实上的某种状态，避免其权利在诉讼或仲裁过程中遭受侵害，保证最终裁决所确认的救济得以顺利执行。国际仲裁案件中，因案件的复杂性，仲裁庭的组成往往耗时较长，紧急仲裁员的指定时间系在仲裁庭成立之前，且耗时极短，紧急仲裁员作出的临时措施能更快地为当事人提供救济，维护当事人的权利。紧急仲裁员还有可能根据案件的具体情况，灵活扩大临时措施的种类范围。
The emergency arbitrator system is important in international commercial arbitration. Similar to the role of preservation in traditional litigation and arbitration, when one of the parties concerned is in emergencies such as the transfer of disputed property or the loss of crucial evidence, the emergency arbitrator issues interim measures to maintain a certain legal or de facto status of the parties concerned, so as to protect their rights from infringement during litigation or arbitration, and to ensure the relief measures confirmed by the final award can be implemented smoothly. In international arbitration cases, due to the complexity of the case, the formation of arbitral tribunals often takes a long time. The emergency arbitrator is appointed within a short time before the establishment of the arbitral tribunal. The interim measures issued by emergency arbitrators can provide quicker relief to the parties concerned and safeguard their rights. The emergency arbitrator may also flexibly expand the scope of interim measures according to specific circumstances of the case.
紧急仲裁员程序介绍
Introduction to the Emergency Arbitrator Procedure
1.仲裁案件背景
1. Background information of the case
本案申请人Z公司注册地为中国香港特别行政区，第一被申请人S公司注册地为英属维尔京群岛，第二被申请人X公司注册地为中国内地。
In this case, the claimant Company Z is registered in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, the first respondent, Company S, is registered in the British Virgin Islands, and the second respondent, Company X, is registered in Chinese mainland.
S公司的控股子公司拟在香港联合交易所上市发行股票（以下简称标的股票），Z公司与S公司签署《投资协议书》，约定Z公司同意认购约定份额的标的股票，并承诺在S公司的控股子公司上市后360个日历天内（锁定期）不以任何形式减持所认购的股票。S公司同意在锁定期届满后按照固定收益率根据Z公司的要求回购标的股票或者对Z公司的标的股票转售差额损失给予现金补偿。X公司与Z公司签署了《保证合同》，X公司为S公司履行《投资协议书》项下全部付款义务和责任提供不可撤销的连带责任保证。
Company S's controlled subsidiary intended to list and issue shares (hereinafter referred to as underlying stocks) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Company Z and Company S signed an Investment Agreement, which stipulated that Company Z agreed to subscribe for an agreed share of the underlying stocks and promised that it would not reduce its subscribed shares in any form within 360 calendar days (lock-up period) after the listing of Company S's controlled subsidiary. Company S agreed to repurchase the underlying stocks at a fixed rate of return after the expiration of the lock-up period at the request of Company Z, or to provide cash compensation for Company Z's loss generated by the resale of underlying stocks. Company X and Company Z signed the Guarantee Contract, and Company X shall provide irrevocable joint and several liability guarantee for all payments obliged to Company S under Investment Agreement.
后，Z公司根据《投资协议书》认购了约定份额的标的股票。锁定期届满后，因S公司未履行《投资协议书》及相关交易文件所约定的回购及资金支付义务，X公司亦未按照《保证合同》约定履行保证责任，Z公司遂向上海仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，请求裁决S公司支付投资本金余额、未付收益、逾期付款违约金、律师费、仲裁费等，X公司就上述仲裁请求承担连带责任。
Later, Company Z subscribed for the agreed share of the underlying stocks in accordance with the Investment Agreement. After the lock-up period expired, as Company S failed to fulfill its repurchase and payment obligations stipulated in the Investment Agreement and related transaction documents, and Company X didn't realize the responsibility of guarantee stipulated in the Guarantee Contract, Company Z filed an arbitration application to Shanghai Arbitration Commission, requesting that Company S should pay the balance of investment principal, unpaid income, liquidated damages for overdue payments, attorneys' fees, arbitration fees, etc., and Company X shall bear joint liability.
2. Z公司提出临时措施申请
2. Company Z filed an application for interim measures
Z公司提出仲裁申请的同时，向上海仲裁委员会提交了《紧急临时措施申请书》，提出如下申请事项：（1）请求适用紧急仲裁员程序，指定紧急仲裁员；（2）请求采取临时措施，对S公司所持有的港股上市公司23亿股标的股票采取不限制证券卖出的冻结方式，即冻结S公司按照冻结实施日前一交易日收盘价计算的港股上市公司等值港元的无权利负担流通股股票，或者等值港元的证券账户资金。
Alongside filing for arbitration, Company Z submitted an Application for Interim Measures to Shanghai Arbitration Commission, outlining the following requests: (1) Seeking the application of the emergency arbitrator procedure and the appointment of an emergency arbitrator; (2) Seeking interim measures to freeze the 2,300,000,000 shares of the underlying stocks held by Company S on the Hong Kong stock market, without restrictions on the sale of securities. This entails freezing Company S's circulating stocks of the Hong Kong-listed company, valued at the closing price on the trading day prior to the implementation of the freeze, or an equivalent amount in Hong Kong dollars in the securities account.
3.紧急仲裁员程序启动
3. Initiation of emergency arbitrator procedure
仲裁委经初步审查，决定适用紧急仲裁员程序，仲裁委主任于2022年8月11日，即Z公司缴纳紧急仲裁员程序费用之后两日内，指定了本案的紧急仲裁员，向双方当事人发送了相关通知。
Following a preliminary review by the Arbitration Commission, it has been decided to initiate the emergency arbitrator procedure. On August 11, 2022, two days after Company Z paid the emergency arbitrator procedural fees, the Director of the Arbitration Commission appointed an emergency arbitrator for this case. Relevant notifications have been sent to both parties concerned.
4.临时措施申请的审查
4. Review of the interim measures application
2022年8月12日，紧急仲裁员制作《第一号程序令》，对紧急仲裁程序的推进及时间做出安排。
On August 12, 2022, the emergency arbitrator issued the First Procedural Order, outlining the progress and scheduling of the emergency arbitration procedure.
2022年8月19日，紧急仲裁员组织双方在线上发表口头意见。紧急仲裁员围绕“仲裁请求的胜诉可能性”“临时措施的紧迫性”“有无其他潜在执行方式”“临时措施的合理性及可执行性”“临时措施对S公司的可能损害”及“Z公司可以何种形式提供担保”等事项结合证据进行了调查核实，双方均作了陈述和辩论。仲裁庭分析如下：
On August 19, 2022, the emergency arbitrator facilitated an online hearing where both parties presented their oral arguments. The emergency arbitrator conducted an investigation and verification based on evidence regarding issues such as the "probability of success on the arbitration claim," "urgency of interim measures," "existence of alternative means of enforcement," "reasonableness and enforceability of interim measures," "potential harm to Company S from the interim measures," and "how Company Z can provide security." Both parties made statements and engaged in debate during this process. The arbitral tribunal's analysis is as follows:
（1）Z公司之仲裁请求是否有合理的胜诉可能。
(1) Whether Company Z's arbitration claims have a reasonable probability of success.
紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司的各项仲裁请求有明确的合同依据；现有证据材料显示S公司尚未履行上述合同义务；在本案听取当事人口头意见的过程中，S公司亦承认其对Z公司负有偿债义务。故Z公司已经提供初步证据证明其合理的胜诉可能。
The emergency arbitrator acknowledged that Company Z's arbitration claims have clear contractual grounds. Existing evidence indicated that Company S has not fulfilled its contractual obligations as outlined in the aforementioned contract. During the process of hearing oral arguments in this case, Company S also acknowledged its debt obligations to Company Z. Therefore, Company Z has provided preliminary evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability of success on its claims.
（2）情况是否紧迫，若不采取临时措施是否可能对Z公司造成难以弥补的损害，且该损害是否显著超出如采取临时措施将很可能给S公司带来的损害。
(2) Whether the situation is urgent, and if interim measures are not taken, whether it might cause Company Z irreparable harm, and whether such harm significantly exceeds the potential harm that interim measures might cause to Company S.
紧急仲裁员认为，S公司确存在随时减持、抛售股票的现实可能性，且S公司的核心财产即为其持有的标的股票，如果S公司出售了该部分财产，其很有可能将相应收益直接转出至其他关联实体，该行为客观上将导致其偿债能力进一步下降。若不采取临时措施，有可能影响Z公司嗣后执行仲裁裁决，对Z公司造成损害，且该种损害显著超过采取临时措施对S公司的损害。
The emergency arbitrator recognized the realistic possibility of Company S reducing or selling its stocks at any time, and the core asset of Company S is the underlying stocks it holds. If Company S sells this part of its assets, it is likely to transfer the corresponding proceeds directly to other affiliated entities, objectively leading to a further decline in its solvency. Without interim measures, there is a potential impact on Company Z's ability to enforce the arbitration award in the future, causing harm to Company Z. Moreover, such harm significantly exceeds the potential harm that interim measures might cause to Company S.
（3）除Z公司请求的临时措施外，S公司有无其他保障未来潜在仲裁裁决得到执行的方式。
(3) In addition to the interim measures requested by Company Z, whether Company S has any other means to ensure the future potential enforcement of an arbitration award.
对于连带保证责任担保，鉴于X公司已在多起案件中被列为失信被执行人，其不能承担保证责任的可能性较大。S公司也未提交其他有效证据证明其拥有其他财产的价值。因此，紧急仲裁员认为S公司并未证明其有其他能够保障未来潜在仲裁裁决得到执行的方式。
Regarding joint liability guarantee, given that Company X has been listed as a dishonest judgment debtor in multiple cases, there is a significant possibility that it may not be able to fulfill its guarantee liability. Company S has also not submitted any other valid evidence to demonstrate the value of its other assets. Therefore, the emergency arbitrator concluded that Company S has not proven the existence of any alternative means to ensure the future potential enforcement of an arbitration award.
（4）Z公司所请求采取的各项临时措施是否具有合理性及可执行性。
(4) Whether the various interim measures requested by Company Z are reasonable and enforceable.
紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司所请求的临时措施形式在商事仲裁实践中比较常见，本身具有合理性；并且，如前所述，由于Z公司并不要求限制股票的出售，该项临时措施对S公司财产的影响更小。由于标的股票上市公司的注册地为香港，因此，本案临时措施的可执行性时应考虑香港特别行政区的相关法律规定。紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司请求的临时措施属于香港法例609章《仲裁条例》第22B条（2）款a）项（维持现状）或c）项（财产保全）范围之内，具有在香港高等法院执行的可行性。同时，香港《高等法院条例》第21L条第（3）款也规定，香港法院可以通过强制令防止被告的资产耗散。原告也可以允许被告出售被限制的特定财产，但限制相关出售收益的耗散。
The emergency arbitrator held that the form of interim measures requested by Company Z is relatively common in commercial arbitration practice and is reasonable in itself; and, as mentioned above, since Company Z does not require a restriction on the sale of shares, this interim measure will have less impact on the property of Company S. Since the registered place of the underlying stock-listed company is Hong Kong, the relevant legal provisions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should be taken into consideration when determining the enforceability of the interim measures in this case. The emergency arbitrator held that the interim measures requested by Company Z fell within the scope of Article 22B (2)(a) (maintenance of the status quo) or (c) (preservation of property) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 of the Laws of Hong Kong, and were enforceable in the High Court of Hong Kong. At the same time, subsection (3) of section 21L of High Court Ordinance also stipulates that the Hong Kong courts can grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the removing of or dealing with the defendant’s assets. The plaintiff may also allow the defendant to sell the particular property subject to restrictions but limit the removing of and dealing with the related sale proceeds.
此外，在紧急仲裁员程序的审查过程中，被申请人对程序的合法性提出异议，认为申请人向上海仲裁委员会申请紧急仲裁员救济在程序上没有法律依据。紧急仲裁员认为，双方当事人合意选择了《上海仲裁委员会仲裁规则》，视为双方已经同意在争议中适用其中各项程序和权利，也包括紧急仲裁员制度。因此，申请人有权依据仲裁规则第二十八条和附件二的规定申请紧急仲裁员救济。
In addition, during the review of the emergency arbitrator procedure, the respondent objected to the legality of the procedure, arguing that the claimant's application to Shanghai Arbitration Commission for emergency arbitrator had no legal basis in the procedure. The emergency arbitrator believed that both parties have consensually chosen Shanghai Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules, which means both parties have agreed to apply the procedures and rights therein, including the emergency arbitrator system, in this dispute. Therefore, the claimant has the right to apply for emergency arbitrator procedure in accordance with Article 28 and Annex 2 of the Arbitration Rules.
5.临时措施申请的决定
5. Decision on application for interim measures
根据上述意见，紧急仲裁员于2022年8月26日作出《紧急仲裁员决定书》，决定如下：（1）采取临时措施的标的是S公司持有的、按照临时措施实施日之前一交易日收盘价计算的标的股票等值八千万港币的无权利负担流通股股票或该等流通股股票转让后不超过前述标的金额的资金，现金，证券账户或银行账户的存款；前述股票在临时措施实施期间，可以转让，但转让所获得的资金、现金、证券账户或银行账户的存款同为本临时措施下的标的；临时措施实施期间，S公司除可转让前述流通股股票外，不得以任何形式另行处置前述流通股股票或者转让后所得的资金、现金、证券账户或银行账户的存款（包括但不限于作任何抵押、质押等担保措施）。为避免任何疑问，S公司有权自行处置标的金额以上的任何资产。（2）临时措施的有效期为六个月。
Based on the above opinions, the emergency arbitrator issued the Emergency Arbitrator's Decision on August 26, 2022, which decided as follows: (1) The subject matter of the interim measures is the non-encumbrance shares of HK $80 million worth of the underlying stocks held by Company S at the closing price of the trading day prior to the implementation date of the interim measures, or the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts not exceeding the aforesaid amount after the transfer of such shares; the above-mentioned stocks may be transferred during the implementation of the interim measures, provided that the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts obtained from the transfer are the same subject matter under the interim measures; during the implementation of the interim measures, except for the transfer of the aforesaid circulating shares, Company S shall not dispose of the aforesaid circulating shares or the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts obtained after the transfer in any form (including but not limited to any mortgage, pledge and other security measures). For the avoidance of any doubt, Company S reserves the right to dispose of any assets worthy above the subject matter at its discretion. (2) The interim measures shall be valid for six months.
6.临时措施的执行
6. Enforcement of interim measures
香港高等法院于2022年11月15日认可了本案紧急仲裁员作出的《紧急仲裁员决定书》,并执行了该临时措施。
On November 15, 2022, the High Court of Hong Kong recognized the Emergency Arbitrator's Decision made by the emergency arbitrator in this case and enforced the interim measures.
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022
The Emergency Arbitrator’s Decision was Again Recognized and Enforced by the High Court of Hong Kong
关键词
Key Words
紧急仲裁员 临时措施 香港执行
Emergency Arbitrator, Interim Measures, Enforcement of Hong Kong Courts
审理要旨
Principle of the Trial
紧急仲裁员程序的启动需从程序与实体的角度予以考量。程序上，当事人提出紧急仲裁员程序申请时，仲裁机构会审核该程序的可适用性如机构的管辖权、书面申请的提交等，并指定紧急仲裁员。实体上，紧急仲裁员作出临时措施决定时主要会考虑该程序的申请人在案件裁决结果中实体胜诉的可能性、临时措施的必要性与紧迫性以及临时措施的可执行性等。同时，在必要时，申请人还需提供一定的担保，避免临时措施的滥用。紧急仲裁员作出临时措施的决定之后，当事人可以在符合执行地国家或者地区的法律规定时，向有管辖权的法院申请强制执行。
The initiation of emergency arbitrator procedure shall be considered from both a procedural and a substantive perspective. When the party concerned applies for emergency arbitrator procedure, the arbitral institution will review the applicability of the procedure, including the institution's jurisdiction, submission of written applications, etc., and appoint an emergency arbitrator. When deciding on interim measures, the emergency arbitrator will mainly consider the possibility of the claimant substantively winning the case, and the necessity, urgency and enforceability of interim measures. At the same time, if necessary, the claimant shall provide certain guarantees to avoid the abuse of interim measures. After the emergency arbitrator makes a decision on interim measures and when the measures comply with the law of the country or region where the enforcement will be made, the party concerned can apply to courts with jurisdiction for enforcement.
典型意义
Significance
紧急仲裁员制度是国际商事仲裁中的一项重要制度。与传统诉讼和仲裁中的保全作用相同，在一方当事人可能面临系争财产被转移或重要证据灭失等紧急情况下，紧急仲裁员发布临时措施来保持当事人法律或者事实上的某种状态，避免其权利在诉讼或仲裁过程中遭受侵害，保证最终裁决所确认的救济得以顺利执行。国际仲裁案件中，因案件的复杂性，仲裁庭的组成往往耗时较长，紧急仲裁员的指定时间系在仲裁庭成立之前，且耗时极短，紧急仲裁员作出的临时措施能更快地为当事人提供救济，维护当事人的权利。紧急仲裁员还有可能根据案件的具体情况，灵活扩大临时措施的种类范围。
The emergency arbitrator system is important in international commercial arbitration. Similar to the role of preservation in traditional litigation and arbitration, when one of the parties concerned is in emergencies such as the transfer of disputed property or the loss of crucial evidence, the emergency arbitrator issues interim measures to maintain a certain legal or de facto status of the parties concerned, so as to protect their rights from infringement during litigation or arbitration, and to ensure the relief measures confirmed by the final award can be implemented smoothly. In international arbitration cases, due to the complexity of the case, the formation of arbitral tribunals often takes a long time. The emergency arbitrator is appointed within a short time before the establishment of the arbitral tribunal. The interim measures issued by emergency arbitrators can provide quicker relief to the parties concerned and safeguard their rights. The emergency arbitrator may also flexibly expand the scope of interim measures according to specific circumstances of the case.
紧急仲裁员程序介绍
Introduction to the Emergency Arbitrator Procedure
1.仲裁案件背景
1. Background information of the case
本案申请人Z公司注册地为中国香港特别行政区，第一被申请人S公司注册地为英属维尔京群岛，第二被申请人X公司注册地为中国内地。
In this case, the claimant Company Z is registered in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, the first respondent, Company S, is registered in the British Virgin Islands, and the second respondent, Company X, is registered in Chinese mainland.
S公司的控股子公司拟在香港联合交易所上市发行股票（以下简称标的股票），Z公司与S公司签署《投资协议书》，约定Z公司同意认购约定份额的标的股票，并承诺在S公司的控股子公司上市后360个日历天内（锁定期）不以任何形式减持所认购的股票。S公司同意在锁定期届满后按照固定收益率根据Z公司的要求回购标的股票或者对Z公司的标的股票转售差额损失给予现金补偿。X公司与Z公司签署了《保证合同》，X公司为S公司履行《投资协议书》项下全部付款义务和责任提供不可撤销的连带责任保证。
Company S's controlled subsidiary intended to list and issue shares (hereinafter referred to as underlying stocks) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Company Z and Company S signed an Investment Agreement, which stipulated that Company Z agreed to subscribe for an agreed share of the underlying stocks and promised that it would not reduce its subscribed shares in any form within 360 calendar days (lock-up period) after the listing of Company S's controlled subsidiary. Company S agreed to repurchase the underlying stocks at a fixed rate of return after the expiration of the lock-up period at the request of Company Z, or to provide cash compensation for Company Z's loss generated by the resale of underlying stocks. Company X and Company Z signed the Guarantee Contract, and Company X shall provide irrevocable joint and several liability guarantee for all payments obliged to Company S under Investment Agreement.
后，Z公司根据《投资协议书》认购了约定份额的标的股票。锁定期届满后，因S公司未履行《投资协议书》及相关交易文件所约定的回购及资金支付义务，X公司亦未按照《保证合同》约定履行保证责任，Z公司遂向上海仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，请求裁决S公司支付投资本金余额、未付收益、逾期付款违约金、律师费、仲裁费等，X公司就上述仲裁请求承担连带责任。
Later, Company Z subscribed for the agreed share of the underlying stocks in accordance with the Investment Agreement. After the lock-up period expired, as Company S failed to fulfill its repurchase and payment obligations stipulated in the Investment Agreement and related transaction documents, and Company X didn't realize the responsibility of guarantee stipulated in the Guarantee Contract, Company Z filed an arbitration application to Shanghai Arbitration Commission, requesting that Company S should pay the balance of investment principal, unpaid income, liquidated damages for overdue payments, attorneys' fees, arbitration fees, etc., and Company X shall bear joint liability.
2. Z公司提出临时措施申请
2. Company Z filed an application for interim measures
Z公司提出仲裁申请的同时，向上海仲裁委员会提交了《紧急临时措施申请书》，提出如下申请事项：（1）请求适用紧急仲裁员程序，指定紧急仲裁员；（2）请求采取临时措施，对S公司所持有的港股上市公司23亿股标的股票采取不限制证券卖出的冻结方式，即冻结S公司按照冻结实施日前一交易日收盘价计算的港股上市公司等值港元的无权利负担流通股股票，或者等值港元的证券账户资金。
Alongside filing for arbitration, Company Z submitted an Application for Interim Measures to Shanghai Arbitration Commission, outlining the following requests: (1) Seeking the application of the emergency arbitrator procedure and the appointment of an emergency arbitrator; (2) Seeking interim measures to freeze the 2,300,000,000 shares of the underlying stocks held by Company S on the Hong Kong stock market, without restrictions on the sale of securities. This entails freezing Company S's circulating stocks of the Hong Kong-listed company, valued at the closing price on the trading day prior to the implementation of the freeze, or an equivalent amount in Hong Kong dollars in the securities account.
3.紧急仲裁员程序启动
3. Initiation of emergency arbitrator procedure
仲裁委经初步审查，决定适用紧急仲裁员程序，仲裁委主任于2022年8月11日，即Z公司缴纳紧急仲裁员程序费用之后两日内，指定了本案的紧急仲裁员，向双方当事人发送了相关通知。
Following a preliminary review by the Arbitration Commission, it has been decided to initiate the emergency arbitrator procedure. On August 11, 2022, two days after Company Z paid the emergency arbitrator procedural fees, the Director of the Arbitration Commission appointed an emergency arbitrator for this case. Relevant notifications have been sent to both parties concerned.
4.临时措施申请的审查
4. Review of the interim measures application
2022年8月12日，紧急仲裁员制作《第一号程序令》，对紧急仲裁程序的推进及时间做出安排。
On August 12, 2022, the emergency arbitrator issued the First Procedural Order, outlining the progress and scheduling of the emergency arbitration procedure.
2022年8月19日，紧急仲裁员组织双方在线上发表口头意见。紧急仲裁员围绕“仲裁请求的胜诉可能性”“临时措施的紧迫性”“有无其他潜在执行方式”“临时措施的合理性及可执行性”“临时措施对S公司的可能损害”及“Z公司可以何种形式提供担保”等事项结合证据进行了调查核实，双方均作了陈述和辩论。仲裁庭分析如下：
On August 19, 2022, the emergency arbitrator facilitated an online hearing where both parties presented their oral arguments. The emergency arbitrator conducted an investigation and verification based on evidence regarding issues such as the "probability of success on the arbitration claim," "urgency of interim measures," "existence of alternative means of enforcement," "reasonableness and enforceability of interim measures," "potential harm to Company S from the interim measures," and "how Company Z can provide security." Both parties made statements and engaged in debate during this process. The arbitral tribunal's analysis is as follows:
（1）Z公司之仲裁请求是否有合理的胜诉可能。
(1) Whether Company Z's arbitration claims have a reasonable probability of success.
紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司的各项仲裁请求有明确的合同依据；现有证据材料显示S公司尚未履行上述合同义务；在本案听取当事人口头意见的过程中，S公司亦承认其对Z公司负有偿债义务。故Z公司已经提供初步证据证明其合理的胜诉可能。
The emergency arbitrator acknowledged that Company Z's arbitration claims have clear contractual grounds. Existing evidence indicated that Company S has not fulfilled its contractual obligations as outlined in the aforementioned contract. During the process of hearing oral arguments in this case, Company S also acknowledged its debt obligations to Company Z. Therefore, Company Z has provided preliminary evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability of success on its claims.
（2）情况是否紧迫，若不采取临时措施是否可能对Z公司造成难以弥补的损害，且该损害是否显著超出如采取临时措施将很可能给S公司带来的损害。
(2) Whether the situation is urgent, and if interim measures are not taken, whether it might cause Company Z irreparable harm, and whether such harm significantly exceeds the potential harm that interim measures might cause to Company S.
紧急仲裁员认为，S公司确存在随时减持、抛售股票的现实可能性，且S公司的核心财产即为其持有的标的股票，如果S公司出售了该部分财产，其很有可能将相应收益直接转出至其他关联实体，该行为客观上将导致其偿债能力进一步下降。若不采取临时措施，有可能影响Z公司嗣后执行仲裁裁决，对Z公司造成损害，且该种损害显著超过采取临时措施对S公司的损害。
The emergency arbitrator recognized the realistic possibility of Company S reducing or selling its stocks at any time, and the core asset of Company S is the underlying stocks it holds. If Company S sells this part of its assets, it is likely to transfer the corresponding proceeds directly to other affiliated entities, objectively leading to a further decline in its solvency. Without interim measures, there is a potential impact on Company Z's ability to enforce the arbitration award in the future, causing harm to Company Z. Moreover, such harm significantly exceeds the potential harm that interim measures might cause to Company S.
（3）除Z公司请求的临时措施外，S公司有无其他保障未来潜在仲裁裁决得到执行的方式。
(3) In addition to the interim measures requested by Company Z, whether Company S has any other means to ensure the future potential enforcement of an arbitration award.
对于连带保证责任担保，鉴于X公司已在多起案件中被列为失信被执行人，其不能承担保证责任的可能性较大。S公司也未提交其他有效证据证明其拥有其他财产的价值。因此，紧急仲裁员认为S公司并未证明其有其他能够保障未来潜在仲裁裁决得到执行的方式。
Regarding joint liability guarantee, given that Company X has been listed as a dishonest judgment debtor in multiple cases, there is a significant possibility that it may not be able to fulfill its guarantee liability. Company S has also not submitted any other valid evidence to demonstrate the value of its other assets. Therefore, the emergency arbitrator concluded that Company S has not proven the existence of any alternative means to ensure the future potential enforcement of an arbitration award.
（4）Z公司所请求采取的各项临时措施是否具有合理性及可执行性。
(4) Whether the various interim measures requested by Company Z are reasonable and enforceable.
紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司所请求的临时措施形式在商事仲裁实践中比较常见，本身具有合理性；并且，如前所述，由于Z公司并不要求限制股票的出售，该项临时措施对S公司财产的影响更小。由于标的股票上市公司的注册地为香港，因此，本案临时措施的可执行性时应考虑香港特别行政区的相关法律规定。紧急仲裁员认为，Z公司请求的临时措施属于香港法例609章《仲裁条例》第22B条（2）款a）项（维持现状）或c）项（财产保全）范围之内，具有在香港高等法院执行的可行性。同时，香港《高等法院条例》第21L条第（3）款也规定，香港法院可以通过强制令防止被告的资产耗散。原告也可以允许被告出售被限制的特定财产，但限制相关出售收益的耗散。
The emergency arbitrator held that the form of interim measures requested by Company Z is relatively common in commercial arbitration practice and is reasonable in itself; and, as mentioned above, since Company Z does not require a restriction on the sale of shares, this interim measure will have less impact on the property of Company S. Since the registered place of the underlying stock-listed company is Hong Kong, the relevant legal provisions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should be taken into consideration when determining the enforceability of the interim measures in this case. The emergency arbitrator held that the interim measures requested by Company Z fell within the scope of Article 22B (2)(a) (maintenance of the status quo) or (c) (preservation of property) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 of the Laws of Hong Kong, and were enforceable in the High Court of Hong Kong. At the same time, subsection (3) of section 21L of High Court Ordinance also stipulates that the Hong Kong courts can grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the removing of or dealing with the defendant’s assets. The plaintiff may also allow the defendant to sell the particular property subject to restrictions but limit the removing of and dealing with the related sale proceeds.
此外，在紧急仲裁员程序的审查过程中，被申请人对程序的合法性提出异议，认为申请人向上海仲裁委员会申请紧急仲裁员救济在程序上没有法律依据。紧急仲裁员认为，双方当事人合意选择了《上海仲裁委员会仲裁规则》，视为双方已经同意在争议中适用其中各项程序和权利，也包括紧急仲裁员制度。因此，申请人有权依据仲裁规则第二十八条和附件二的规定申请紧急仲裁员救济。
In addition, during the review of the emergency arbitrator procedure, the respondent objected to the legality of the procedure, arguing that the claimant's application to Shanghai Arbitration Commission for emergency arbitrator had no legal basis in the procedure. The emergency arbitrator believed that both parties have consensually chosen Shanghai Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules, which means both parties have agreed to apply the procedures and rights therein, including the emergency arbitrator system, in this dispute. Therefore, the claimant has the right to apply for emergency arbitrator procedure in accordance with Article 28 and Annex 2 of the Arbitration Rules.
5.临时措施申请的决定
5. Decision on application for interim measures
根据上述意见，紧急仲裁员于2022年8月26日作出《紧急仲裁员决定书》，决定如下：（1）采取临时措施的标的是S公司持有的、按照临时措施实施日之前一交易日收盘价计算的标的股票等值八千万港币的无权利负担流通股股票或该等流通股股票转让后不超过前述标的金额的资金，现金，证券账户或银行账户的存款；前述股票在临时措施实施期间，可以转让，但转让所获得的资金、现金、证券账户或银行账户的存款同为本临时措施下的标的；临时措施实施期间，S公司除可转让前述流通股股票外，不得以任何形式另行处置前述流通股股票或者转让后所得的资金、现金、证券账户或银行账户的存款（包括但不限于作任何抵押、质押等担保措施）。为避免任何疑问，S公司有权自行处置标的金额以上的任何资产。（2）临时措施的有效期为六个月。
Based on the above opinions, the emergency arbitrator issued the Emergency Arbitrator's Decision on August 26, 2022, which decided as follows: (1) The subject matter of the interim measures is the non-encumbrance shares of HK $80 million worth of the underlying stocks held by Company S at the closing price of the trading day prior to the implementation date of the interim measures, or the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts not exceeding the aforesaid amount after the transfer of such shares; the above-mentioned stocks may be transferred during the implementation of the interim measures, provided that the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts obtained from the transfer are the same subject matter under the interim measures; during the implementation of the interim measures, except for the transfer of the aforesaid circulating shares, Company S shall not dispose of the aforesaid circulating shares or the funds, cash, deposits in securities accounts or bank accounts obtained after the transfer in any form (including but not limited to any mortgage, pledge and other security measures). For the avoidance of any doubt, Company S reserves the right to dispose of any assets worthy above the subject matter at its discretion. (2) The interim measures shall be valid for six months.
6.临时措施的执行
6. Enforcement of interim measures
香港高等法院于2022年11月15日认可了本案紧急仲裁员作出的《紧急仲裁员决定书》,并执行了该临时措施。
On November 15, 2022, the High Court of Hong Kong recognized the Emergency Arbitrator's Decision made by the emergency arbitrator in this case and enforced the interim measures.
（案例提供人：上海仲裁委员会一般民商事部副法律顾问强琳）
(Provided by: Ms QIANG Lin, Deputy Legal Counsel of Department of General Civil and Commercial Cases of Shanghai Arbitration Commission)
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022