3月底，两则来自中国科技巨头的新闻曾给市场带来不小震动：首先是阿里巴巴宣布将拆分为六大业务集团，“对各自经营结果负总责，有独立融资和上市的可能性”；其后京东集团宣布分拆旗下两家公司，京东工业及京东产发，并已向港交所递表申请上市。
接连两起事件引发不少讨论，一方面，市场议论集中于此举是否出于监管压力，或仅是公司内部运营或融资考虑？另一方面，市场也持续关注是否将有更多中国科技巨头仿效做出拆分举动。
以拆分应对反垄断监管压力？
市场所谓“因应对监管压力而拆分”，部分指的便是来自反垄断领域的压力——2021年，中国市场监管总局就曾因阿里巴巴违反《反垄断法》而开出182亿元罚单。但反垄断领域法律专家指出：就像“大”不一定意味着具有垄断地位，“拆”也不一定能够解决垄断问题。
一位中国头部律所的反垄断业务合伙人告诉ALB：“大企业通常意味着资产大、规模大、市场影响力大，但这和市场支配地位不能直接划等号。《反垄断法》上也要首先界定相关市场：大企业未必有支配地位，小企业未必没有支配地位。”
进而，拆分也不一定能够瓦解滥用市场支配地位问题。“拆分后的几家企业是否更换了新的实际控制人？拆分后，他们之间的业务协同效应是否就此消失？这些都不一定。”这位合伙人说。
“如果新公司的实际控制人没有变化，只是在形式上分开为不同的公司，虽然中国《反垄断法》上没有明确的说法，但在欧盟，这被称为‘单一经济体’，几家企业实际上仍被视为同一个经济体。因此在反垄断的语境下，形式上的拆分并不会必然导致企业原有市场力量由大变小。”
所以在这位合伙人看来，相关事件并不一定是反垄断监管压力所引发的。“大企业的某个产业板块壮大了，把它拆分出去单独发展是比较常见的行为。尤其拆分后上市可以获得新融资，这更像是资本运作的手段。”
实际上，从2021年起，针对科技巨头的垄断优势，欧美也频发“拆分”之声，但截至目前尚无实质性进展（例如：美国司法部于2023年1月对Google提起了诉讼，可能涉及要求其拆分在线广告业务）。这位合伙人解释道，拆分其实是反垄断规制早期曾经使用过的一种结构性救济措施，例如，美国司法机关曾依据《谢尔曼法》对石油、烟草、电信行业企业进行拆分（均发生于20世纪早期，最近的拆分发生于1984年AT&T的拆分），“当时被认为解决了垄断问题”。
但伴随支撑反垄断法的经济学理念以及执法理念的变化，“美国上一次真正把哪家公司给拆了，还是几十年前的事……现在反垄断界占据主流地位的后芝加哥学派不认为拆分对于维护市场公平竞争有效果”。换句话说，公众对于“拆分解决垄断问题”的认知，和目前的反垄断理论及执法实践存在一定差距。
不过，这并不意味着反垄断律师无法参与到整个事件中。“实际上律师的作用是非常大的。”这位合伙人坦言。无论对原先的大集团，或拆分后的新公司，都特别有必要将反垄断法律专家纳入事前合规，对商业安排的垄断风险展开全面论证，“现在各大企业都很重视这块，投入了很多内部资源，也有外部律师参与其中”。
将形成新的IPO趋势
相比于应对监管压力，相关企业可能更关注拆分后带来的融资益处，京东工业及京东产发申请香港上市便是例证，此外，阿里巴巴处也传来旗下菜鸟网络即将在香港递表的消息。
“拆分业务寻求独立上市很可能成为今年IPO市场的一个新趋势。”竞天公诚律师事务所合伙人田明子说，“已经成熟的大型互联网集团，或者其他相对比较成熟的上市公司，在其各个业务板块发展完整、可独立运营、符合上市条件的情况下分拆上市，可以实现上市公司产业资本架构的升级和优化，并进一步释放新兴或者成长业务板块的投资价值。”
资本市场角度，整个过程主要需考虑两方面的技术性要求：其一，拟分拆的母公司及分拆板块需要根据母公司的上市地规则判断需要满足的分拆条件；其二，被分拆板块公司则需根据拟上市地的上市规则来判断上市条件。
目前看来，不少分拆出来的公司都将香港列为首选上市地，这其中有何考虑？田明子律师指出，赴港上市确实有些优势，例如“香港资本市场的投资环境和监管环境都比较成熟，政策上的不确定因素已经消除……并且对于已经在A股或者美股上市的公司而言，分拆某业务板块至香港上市还可以实现其多元化的资本市场布局，有利于整个集团的全面布局和发展”。
那么，这类仍由母公司控股，并带有互联网基因的业务板块在香港上市过程中，监管机构可能会重点关注哪些法律问题？田律师指出，这其中包括“业务合规及牌照完整性；VIE架构的合法性和必要性（如适用）；重大诉讼、仲裁或行政处罚；劳动和社会保险；物业的合规性；董监高的连续性及适格性；同业竞争与关联交易等方面”。
“如果是港股上市公司分拆下属业务板块上市，还需要注意满足香港联交所PN15指引关于分拆的各项要求。”她说。
此外，由于这些公司都以中国为主要经营地，还需根据今年3月底刚刚生效的境外上市新规，“满足中国证监会的要求并向其备案……中国证监会重点关注的法律问题包括：是否有不得境外发行上市的情形、关于股权结构和控制架构的核查、是否符合分拆规则（如A股上市公司分拆业务板块境外上市）、是否涉及安全审查、是否满足保密和档案管理要求等”。
总之，田律师总结道，分拆后寻求上市能够实现资本市场布局多元化，但也要根据自身需求，注意满足不同交易所的相关规则，并密切关注最新规定和政策要求，真正实现公司商业利益的最大化。
BREAKING UP TECH GIANTS
Two pieces of news involving Chinese tech giants at the end of March caused quite a stir in the market: Alibaba announced that it would be split into six major business groups, "each responsible for its operating results, with the possibility of seeking funding and going public on its own”; subsequently, JD.com announced the spin-off of its two companies, Jingdong Industrials Inc. and Jingdong Property Inc., and said it has applied to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) for listing of the two companies.
These developments have sparked much discussion. Were these moves due to regulatory pressure or whether they were simply due to internal operational or financing considerations? Either way, lawyers are continuing to watch if more Chinese tech giants will follow suit.
ANTITRUST PRESSURE
One theory about the spin-offs is that they happened in response to regulatory pressures, particularly antitrust pressures. In 2021, China's State Administration for Market Regulation imposed a fine of 18.2 billion yuan ($2.6 billion) on Alibaba for violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. However, according to antitrust legal experts, just like size does not necessarily mean a business having monopoly, breaking up also does not necessarily solve monopoly issues.
A partner at a leading Chinese firm specialising in antitrust practice tells ALB: "A large enterprise usually owns a large amount of assets, is large, and enjoys greater market influence. These traits, however, cannot be directly equated with market dominance. For the purpose of the Anti-Monopoly Law, we must also define the relevant market first. As a result, large companies may not necessarily have a dominant position, while their smaller counterparts may not necessarily enjoy no dominance.”
Further, breaking up a company does not automatically solve the issue of dominance. "Have the new companies after the split changed actual controllers? Will the business synergy between the new companies disappear post-split? All of these are uncertain," says the partner. "There is no clear definition in the Anti-Monopoly Law of a situation where the ‘old’ company is simply split into different new companies in form without any change to the actual controllers of the new companies. In the European Union, such a scenario is called 'single economic entity' by which the new companies are still effectively regarded as the same economic entity. Therefore, in the context of antitrust, a formality split will not diminish the original market dominance."
Therefore, in the partner’s view, these developments are not necessarily borne out of antitrust regulatory pressure. "It's normal for a large company to spin off a business segment that has grown to a certain scale to develop independently. This is especially so since listing after the spin-off can offer access to new financing,” they say.
In fact, starting from 2021, that have also been frequent talks about breaking up major tech companies in Europe and the U.S. in response to the monopoly enjoyed by those tech giants. Actual moves, however, have been few and far between. According to the partner, breaking up is actually a type of structural relief measure commonly adopted in the early days of antitrust regulation. For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act of the United States once broke up companies in the petroleum, tobacco and telecommunications industries, and "solved major problems at that time.”
However, with changes in the economic concepts and law enforcement philosophies that underpin antitrust legislation, "the last time the United States really dismantled a company was decades ago... Now the New Chicago School that supports antitrust legislation believes that whether a company is broken up is no longer that important to maintain fair competition on the market." In other words, there is already a gap between the reality and the perception that "breaking up a company solves monopoly.”
That doesn't mean antitrust lawyers cannot get involved in a company break-up. "In fact, lawyers play a vital role," says the partner. Be it the original large group or the new companies after the split, it is especially necessary to include antitrust legal experts in the pre-compliance process and conduct a comprehensive assessment of the antitrust risks of commercial arrangements. "Now, all major companies attach great importance to this aspect. They have invested a lot of internal resources, and external lawyers are also involved."
NEW IPO TREND
Instead of responding to regulatory pressure, relevant companies may have paid more attention to the benefits of financing brought about by the breakup. This is evidenced by applications by Jingdong Industrials and Jingdong Property for listing in Hong Kong. Alibaba’s subsidiary Cainiao Network Technology is also reportedly filing for an IPO in Hong Kong soon.
"Breaking up a company to seek separate listing is likely to become a new trend on the IPO market this year," says Tian Mingzi, partner at Jingtian & Gongcheng. "Mature large Internet groups, or other relatively mature listed companies, may choose to break up when each business segment is fully developed, can operate independently and meets listing criteria, to achieve upgrading and optimisation of their industrial and capital structures, and further unleash the investment value of emerging or growing business segments."
From the capital market perspective, technical requirements in two main aspects need to be considered. First, the parent company needs to see what conditions for break-up it needs to satisfy according to the rules applicable in its place of listing. Second, subsidiaries should examine listing criteria based on the listing rules of the areas they are to list.
Many spin-offs have selected Hong Kong as the preferred listing destination. As to the considerations behind this, Tian says that listing in Hong Kong does offer certain advantages. For example, "both the investment and regulatory environments of Hong Kong's capital market are relatively sophisticated, and policy uncertainties have all been removed. In addition, for a company already listed on the A-share market or in the US, spinning off certain business segments for listing in Hong Kong can also contribute to a more diversified capital market distribution, benefiting the overall presence and development of the entire group."
What are some of the legal issues regulators may focus on during the listing in Hong Kong of such Internet-related business segments that their parent companies still control? According to Tian, key areas include “business compliance and full licensing requirements; legality and necessity of the VIE structure (if applicable); material litigation, arbitration or administrative punishment; labour and social insurance; real estate compliance; continuity and eligibility of directors, supervisors and senior management personnel; peer competition and affiliated-party transactions, etc.”
"If an H-share company spins off a subordinate business segment for listing, it must also meet the requirements on spin-offs under the PN15 guidelines of the HKEX."
In addition, since these companies mainly operate in China, according to the new rules on the overseas listing that came into effect at the end of this March, they also need to “meet the requirements of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and go through record-filing with it. The legal issues that the CSRC focuses on include: Whether the companies fall under any circumstances that prohibit overseas issuance and listing of shares, verification of the equity structure and control structure of the companies, whether the companies comply with spin-off rules, whether security review is involved, whether the companies meet confidentiality and archives management requirements, etc.".
Tian concludes that seeking listing after spin-off can diversify a company’s capital market presence. On the other hand, it is also necessary for a company to meet the relevant requirements of different stock exchanges according to its own needs and pay close attention to the latest regulations and policy requirements to maximise its commercial interests.
