The 2026 ALB Top GBA Cross-Border Lawyers recognition showcases attorneys supporting clients working through the intricacies of cross-border legal work within the Greater Bay Area (GBA).

Since January 2024, a new reciprocal enforcement regime for Mainland China judgments has been in effect in Hong Kong, prompting clients to reevaluate their approach to cross-border disputes.

Enforcement in Focus

For the practitioners recognised in the 2026 ALB Top GBA Cross-Border Lawyers list, enforcement has been a major focus over the past year. Eric Xu, a consultant at Charles Wilson, has witnessed the impact of this change firsthand.

Xu’s practice has experienced a steady increase in cross-border enforcement work, primarily driven by PRC judgment debtors moving assets offshore after adverse judgments. The lower threshold under the new regime means that a much wider range of Mainland civil and commercial judgments can now be enforced in Hong Kong.

But enforcement is never automatic. Hong Kong judges will not simply rubber-stamp a Mainland judgment, particularly where it turns on PRC concepts with no direct common law equivalent.

Hong Kong’s IPO boom in 2025 has also led to disputes. Many newly listed companies have substantial operations in Mainland China, and Xu’s firm has handled cases concerning de facto control of these companies, with clients pursuing parallel proceedings in both jurisdictions.

Strategic Planning Essential

Ben Chan Siu Pan, a senior consultant and head of the China practice at H.Y. Leung & Co., has noticed clients shifting their approach. ‘Now, clients focus on making sure judgments can be enforced and assets recovered right from the start, rather than waiting until disputes escalate,’ he states.

This change is closely linked to the refined framework for mutual judicial assistance between Hong Kong and the Mainland. The reciprocal recognition and enforcement arrangement for civil and commercial judgments took effect on January 29, 2024. The arbitral award enforcement framework, enhanced by the Supplemental Arrangement fully implemented in 2021, is also in place. Additionally, Hong Kong-seated arbitrations administered by designated institutions can benefit from the 2019 interim measures arrangement, allowing applications to Mainland courts for reliefs like property or evidence preservation.

Choosing a legal venue now demands thorough preparation. Xu advises clients to evaluate their positions before finalizing dispute resolution terms. We now advise clients not to agree to any dispute resolution clause until they have mapped where their own assets and their counterparty’s assets are located, and where an award or judgment is likely to be enforced, says Xu.

Related Post: Ross Hudson named president of NSW Children’s Court

“For example, under the Mainland-Hong Kong interim measures arrangement, a party to a qualifying Hong Kong-seated institutional arbitration can apply to Mainland courts to preserve assets. Founders with significant Mainland assets may be concerned about this exposure, and in such cases, choosing an alternative seat like Singapore might be advisable,” he adds.

Conversely, if pursuing a mainland-based counterparty, selecting Hong Kong as the dispute’s location can provide a tactical edge.

Chan has adjusted his strategy accordingly. From the beginning, he weighs legal arguments against the feasibility of enforcement, asset protection, procedural fit, and commercial implications-while aligning advice from both jurisdictions. The aim is to ensure that the dispute strategy is legally sound, commercially realistic and practically enforceable, notes Chan.

The industries and clients generating work have also diversified significantly. Xu identifies two clear trends: an increase in disputes involving AI and intellectual property, particularly given Shenzhen’s position as China’s leading tech hub, and a rise in GBA companies from traditional sectors expanding overseas and facing disputes with foreign counterparties.

Ben Chan Siu Pan has identified parallel trends among his clients. He highlights rising demand from individuals and businesses whose personal, corporate, and investment interests span Hong Kong, mainland China, and increasingly, regions beyond Asia. These clients—including entrepreneurs, family-run enterprises, investors, and private individuals—seek guidance on structuring businesses, transactions, ownership, governance, succession, and risk management across borders.

Dual Qualification and Expertise

Clients increasingly value dual qualification, particularly for efficiently handling cross-border matters in the Greater Bay Area.

More legal matters now demand proficiency in both Hong Kong and PRC law. Common cases include cross-border financing arrangements, Hong Kong capital market activities involving mainland firms, international enforcement and asset recovery efforts, shareholder or joint-venture conflicts, and succession planning where assets, family members, and holding structures are dispersed globally.

Cross-Border Legal Complexity and Dual Qualification

Clients with interests spanning Hong Kong, Mainland China, and beyond increasingly require advice on managing ownership, control, succession, and risk across jurisdictions. This demand cuts across sectors, driven by the complexity of cross-border asset holding, business expansion, and family wealth structuring. Legal work in this area involves handling corporate structures, multigenerational wealth planning, regulatory requirements, and cross-border tax issues.