The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has signaled that it intends to take a tougher approach to claims of legal professional privilege, particularly where companies assert privilege broadly over internal investigation materials, documents collected during dawn raids, or materials responsive to compulsory regulatory requests.

The warning follows a recent Hong Kong court ruling rejecting privilege claims over an internal investigation report and related materials because their dominant purpose was found to be satisfying regulatory reporting obligations, rather than obtaining legal advice or preparing for litigation. The decision underscores that the involvement of lawyers, confidentiality labels, or even a limited waiver to a regulator does not itself establish privilege.

In this post, our colleagues examine the ruling, the SFC’s stated intention to “push back hard” against over-broad privilege claims, and the practical implications for companies conducting internal investigations and responding to regulatory inquiries. The post also considers how companies can preserve legitimate privilege claims while navigating investigations that may simultaneously involve fact-finding, legal advice, remediation, and regulatory engagement. Click here to read the full post.