- SFC bans Katherina Lo Ka Shun for two years for improper trading arrangement
- SFC obtains court order to wind up China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited
- SFC seeks comments on Principles of Responsible Ownership
- SFC seeks disqualification and compensation orders against former chairman and directors of Inno-Tech Holdings Limited
- SFC bans Wong Chun Yin for life for misconduct
- SFC bans Luo Jianglan for six months for failing to adhere to short selling regulations
- Market Misconduct Tribunal sets date for hearing on alleged false research report
- Court of Final Appeal allows appeal of Pacific Sun Advisors Limited and its director
On 25 February 2015, the SFC banned Ms Katherina Lo Ka Shun (“Lo”) from re-entering the industry for two years from 24 February 2015 to 23 February 2017. Lo was licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”) to carry on Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts) regulated activities and was accredited to Quam Securities Company Limited from 21 October 2010 to 1 January 2014. Lo is currently not a licensed person.
The SFC found that Lo sold 30 million shares in Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited (“Grand Peace”) held by her and her daughter on a pre-arranged basis. The transaction was executed on market on 11 September 2012 at prices which Lo knew that they were not the price she privately agreed with the purchaser. The actual terms Lo agreed to dispose the shares included a cash discount payable to the purchaser amounting to a total sum of HK$700,000.
Although Lo claimed that she did not know that the disposal of shares was improper, the SFC found that as a licensed person with over 10 years of experience in the industry, it is not an excuse that Lo was ignorant to the improperness of such a trading arrangement as she is expected to know the consequences of her conduct. In addition, Lo’s eagerness to sell the shares was not found to be a valid excuse for agreeing to and taking part in the misconduct which had the effect of giving an inaccurate share price to the market. As such, there was no reasonable explanation for the payment of the cash discount and for such a transaction being executed on-market. On-market transactions should reflect what has actually been agreed between the parties.
The SFC considered that this transaction casts considerable doubt on Lo’s fitness and properness to be a licensed person, and subsequently banned her from re-entering the industry for two years.
Readers should note that pursuant to section 245 of the SFO, false trading is a type of market misconduct. These may be tried both as a criminal offence and in the Market Misconduct Tribunal (“MMT”), which determines its proceedings based on the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”. If the SFC, after investigation into any particular case, decides that the civil route is appropriate, it may, with the consent of the Secretary for Justice, institute proceedings in the MMT. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the MMT will issue a public report which states whether any market misconduct has taken place, make orders and give reasons for such orders. False trading is considered particularly damaging because it is disadvantageous to innocent investors and would destabilize the market.
Further information can be found in the Statement of Disciplinary Action issued by the SFC:
For details, please refer to:
On 26 February 2015, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) ordered that China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (“China Metal Recycling”) be wound up in the public interest on the application of the SFC. China Metal Recycling was incorporated in the Cayman Islands on 18 July 2007. On 10 June 2009, it issued a prospectus for Global Offering. On 22 June 2009, its shares were listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“SEHK”). About HK$1,685 million, net of listing expenses, were raised by the initial public offering of the company. Trading in shares of China Metal Recycling has been suspended since 28 January 2013.
On 26 July 2013, the SFC presented a petition to the CFI to wind up China Metal Recycling under section 212 of the SFO and obtained an order to appoint Cosimo Borrelli and Jocelyn Chi Lai Man, both of Borrelli Walsh Limited, as joint and several provisional liquidators for China Metal Recycling. This case is particularly seminal as it is the first time that the SFC obtained a court order to wind up a Hong Kong-listed company under section 212 of the SFO for the purpose of protecting the company’s minority shareholders, creditors and the investing public.
The SFC alleged that the affairs of China Metal Recycling involved a highly complex, sophisticated and dishonest scheme spanning Hong Kong, Macao, the Mainland and the United States of America (“US”). The scheme inflated China Metal Recycling’s performance, revenue and profit dating back to the time of its IPO prospectus in 2009 and becoming larger and more complex in the subsequent years until it was brought to an end when the SFC commenced these proceedings in July 2013. The scheme involved the use of China Metal Recycling’s wholly owned off-shore subsidiary in Macao, Central Steel (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited (“Central Steel Macao”) which was the conduit for a substantial part of the company’s annual profits between 2007 and 2012 and was also a factory for generating false documents and instruments by which these profits were falsified. Further, the scheme also involved fake shipments of scrap metal between the US and the Mainland, false shipping documents, false accounts, and highly complex round robin transactions spanning continents.
As a result, the aggregate revenue and gross profit of China Metal Recycling for the years 2007 to 2009 appears to have been overstated by around 46% or over HK$8 billion and 72% or over HK$1 billion respectively. By way of illustration, Central Steel Macao made 431 payments totaling around US$2.4 billion to its purported key suppliers in the US and Hong Kong in 2012. About 98% of the funds were passed on to its purported customers and eventually circulated back to Central Steel Macao through a multitude of bank accounts, all through multiple entities set up around the world yet controlled centrally within China Metal Recycling.
Moreover, there was no sign of the scheme terminating or at least curtailing in scale after the IPO, or even after the SFC started investigating into the matter. On the contrary, the fictitious circulation of funds increased both in terms of scale and complexity.
The former management of the company and its subsidiaries prior to the appointment of the provisional liquidators denied any impropriety and, until recently, opposed the SFC’s case. However, without accepting any liability, the former management withdrew from the case and took no part in the hearing.
After considering the SFC’s evidence, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris granted the order to wind up China Metal Recycling, and indicated that he would deliver reasons for the decision in due course.
Mr. Mark Steward, the Executive Director of Enforcement, said, “This is an audacious and dishonest scheme using multiple secret nominees established all around the world to deceive Hong Kong investors and creditors into believing this company had a track record and a performance that it simply did not have. It has been stopped and control will vest with independent, court appointed liquidators. The liquidators will be able to conduct an independent assessment of the company’s real position, in the best interests of all those with a financial interest in the case.”
Further, he added, “This has been a very challenging investigation, an unparalleled dogged pursuit to uproot this misconduct in as many parts of the world as the company falsely claimed its containers had travelled. The SFC will continue this pursuit to combat corporate misconduct like this and there is no doubt our work in this matter is not finished yet.”
Readers should note that pursuant to section 212 of the SFO, the SFC is permitted to apply for a winding-up order against companies if it appears to the SFC that it is desirable in the public interest to do so, and the Court may grant the order on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind up those companies. This case illustrates that an example of public interest is the protection of investors and creditors against fraud.
For details, please refer to:
On 2 March 2015, the SFC launched a three-month consultation on proposed Principles of Responsible Ownership which provide guidance for how investors should fulfil their ownership responsibilities in relation to their investment in a listed company.
The seven principles of responsible ownership asks investors to do the following:
- To establish and report to their stakeholders their policies for discharging their ownership responsibilities;
- To monitor and engage their investee companies;
- To establish clear policies on when to escalate their engagement activities;
- To have clear policies on voting;
- To be willing to act collectively with other investors when appropriate;
- To report to their stakeholders on how they have discharged their ownership responsibilities; and
- When investing on behalf of clients, to have policies on managing conflicts of interests.
The principles, which are non-binding and voluntary, operate on a “comply-or-explain” basis. Investors are encouraged to “sign up” to the principles and either disclose how they comply with the principles, or else explain why some or all of the principles do not, or cannot, apply. The principles are relevant to individual and retail investors in that they provide general guidance on share ownership engagement, although some elements of the principles, such as reporting to stakeholders, do not expressly apply to individuals.
“Whilst the primary responsibility for a company’s success rests with the company’s board, investors in a company also play a significant role by holding the board to account for the fulfillment of its responsibilities,” said Mr. Ashley Alder, the SFC’s Chief Executive Officer. “Recognizing the importance of responsible ownership benefits the company, its investors and the economy as a whole,” he added.
The public is invited to submit their comments to the SFC on or before 2 June 2015. Readers may submit written comments via the SFC website (www.sfc.hk), by email to ResponsibleOwnership@sfc.hk, by post or by fax to 2810 5385.
The SFC states in its Consultation Paper that in any mature market economy, there is reliance upon shareholders to evaluate investment opportunities and allocate their capital according to their assessment of risk and likely returns and to then monitor the performance of the company and assess the effectiveness of their capital allocation. In order for them to do so, they need to seek information and monitor the progress of their investee companies. By doing so, responsible shareholders carry out a function that is essential for effective capital allocation that contributes to the economic growth of a society. For instance, while directors are required by law to act in the interests of the shareholders of the company, shareholders are similarly expected to take action where they believe that directors are not acting in the interests of the company or its shareholders. As such, the law provides all shareholders with voting rights and other rights to enable them to engage with directors and to monitor the progress of their investment in the company.
Further, the SFC notes that in the past several decades, there has been a notable increase in institutional ownership of publicly listed companies, and that the importance of the roles and responsibilities of institutional investors in corporate governance has been placed under scrutiny following the global financial crisis of 2008. The SFC therefore emphasizes the importance of encouraging proactive ownership engagement between investors and publicly listed companies. Therefore, whilst the Hong Kong market retains a relatively high proportion of shares held directly by individuals, like all markets, much of each individual’s wealth invested in listed companies is not held directly. Individuals are thus dependent on others to exercise shareholder rights in a way that benefits them individually and society generally. The Consultation is therefore aimed towards providing guidance: (i) to assist investors in determining how best to meet their ownership responsibilities whether these are exercised directly or through intermediaries; and (ii) for intermediaries on whom investors are depending to exercise ownership responsibilities. This guidance is currently provided in the form of the Principles of Responsible Ownership set out in Appendix A of the Consultation, and the SFC is seeking market comments on the said Principles.
It is particularly important to note that since investors pursue different investment objectives, the aim of the Principles is not to advocate any particular investment strategy or to prescribe, quantify or identify the degree of investor engagement necessary to qualify an investor as a responsible investor or good corporate citizen. Instead, the Principles seek to encourage each investor to consider the shareholder engagement policies that are suitable to its circumstances and to then implement these policies, either directly or by selecting intermediaries to do so on its behalf.
To view the Consultation Paper on the Principles of Responsible Ownership, please visit: http://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/consultation/doc?refNo=15CP2
For further details, please refer to:
On 9 March 2015, the SFC commenced legal proceedings in the CFI against the former chairman and directors of Inno-Tech Holdings Limited (“Inno-Tech”) over alleged misconduct that caused the company to lose more than HK$125 million.
Inno-Tech is a company that has been listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of the SEHK since 12 August 2002. Up to 2002, it was principally engaged in the provision of intranet design for residential communities and electronic property management software consultancy. According to its website, Inno-Tech is now engaged in the business of development and sale of intelligent home electronic application system and development of outdoor advertising business on the Mainland. Trading in Inno-Tech shares was suspended since 26 January 2015.
The SFC alleges that Inno-Tech’s former chairman and director, Ms Wong Yuen Yee, and three former directors, namely Mr. Robert Wong Yao Wing, Mr. Wong Kwok Sing and Mr. Lam Shiu San (collectively the “Four Former Directors”), breached their duties as directors in relation to the acquisitions and/or disposals of interests in three hotels and a gold mine on the Mainland between 2007 and 2010 resulting in substantial and material losses to Inno-Tech. The hotels and gold mine concerned are Xindu Hotel, Kaiping Hotel, Changlin Hotel and De Xing City Zhang Jia Fan Gold Mine. The total losses caused by the transactions amounted to more than HK$125 million.
Specifically, the SFC alleges that the Four Former Directors have failed to:
- Carry out adequate investigation into or due diligence prior to the acquisitions of the interests in the three hotels and the gold mine;
- Negotiate the consideration for acquiring the interests in the three hotels and the gold mine;
- Assess or to obtain any independent assessment of whether an investment in the gold mine was a commercially suitable or an appropriate one for Inno-Tech;
- Assess the purchase price of the interests in the gold mine properly;
- Give adequate consideration to who would be appropriate to appoint as directors and/or who to put in charge in respect of gold mining matters; and
- Supervise the running of the gold mine properly.
The SFC is seeking orders that the Four Former Directors be disqualified as company directors and that Inno-Tech bring proceedings against them for compensation or, alternatively, that they be ordered to pay compensation to Inno-Tech directly.
The first hearing of the petition presented by the SFC will be heard in the CFI on 29 April 2015.
Readers should note that the SFC has the power to commence legal proceedings under section 214 of the SFO, under which the court may, among other things, make orders to disqualify a person from being a director or being involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of any corporation for up to 15 years. The court may also order a company to bring proceedings in its own name against any person specified in the order and may make any other order it considers appropriate.
For a details on the material events and allegations made by the SFC, please refer to:
For further details, please refer to:
On 10 March 2015, the SFC banned Mr. Wong Chun Yin (“Wong”), a former relationship manager of the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (“SCBHK”), from re-entering the industry for life. Wong was a relevant individual engaged by SCBHK to carry on Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 4 (advising on securities) regulated activities under the SFO from September 2009 to June 2012.
The SFC found that, between October 2011 and May 2012, Wong effected fund transactions in clients’ accounts without their authorization to meet his sales targets and tried to conceal his misconduct by tampering with one client’s contact information. Further, it was found that Wong also falsified client instructions for the transactions by misleading the clients into signing fund order forms which were blank or with essential instruction particulars missing from the forms.
The SFC found that Wong’s dishonest conduct was not in the best interests of clients and was in breach of the SFC’s Code of Conduct by or Registered with the SFC (“Code of Conduct”). As a result, the SFC concluded Wong is not a fit and proper person to be licensed.
The case was referred to the SFC by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”). The affected clients have been made whole by SCBHK.
The HKMA’s linkage with the SFC relates primarily to the supervision of banks, since authorized financial institutions (“AFIs”) which are regulated by the HKMA have to be registered with the SFC as registered institutions if they wish to carry out an SFC-regulated activity. In supervising these AFIs, the HKMA applies all SFC criteria, including the “fit and proper” criteria. If the HKMA suspects malpractice by registered institutions in respect of an SFC-regulated activity, it may refer such cases to the SFC, which may directly review those institutions.
Further, readers should note that pursuant to section 194 of the SFO, if the SFC finds that a “regulated person is guilty of “misconduct” or is not a fit and proper person, the SFC may:
- In the case of a licensed corporation or representative, revoke or suspend the license in respect of all or part of the licensed corporation or representative, revoke or suspend the license in respect of all or part of the regulated activity;
- In the case of the responsible officer, revoke or suspend approval as a responsible officer;
- Publicly or privately reprimand the regulated person;
- Prohibit the regulated person from applying for a license, registration, approval as a responsible officer or entry in the HKMA register, or to act as an executive officer; and
- Separately or in addition order the regulated person to pay penalty up to the greater of HK$10 million or three times the profit gained or loss avoided as a result of his misconduct.
For the Statement of Disciplinary Action issued by the SFC, please refer to:
For further details, please refer to:
On 11 March 2015, the SFC banned Ms Luo Jianglan (“Luo”) from re-entering the industry for six months from 10 March 2015 to 9 September 2015.
The SFC found that on 22 August 2013, Luo, who was an associate of her employer’s Client Facilitation Desk, created a short sell order of 300,000 shares in China Resources Land Limited (“CRL Order”) and released part of the order to the market without ensuring a relevant stock borrow arrangement in place as required by her employer’s procedures for ensuring compliance with short selling regulations. At the time when Luo created the CRL Order, J.P. Morgan as a group held sufficient CRL shares to cover the order.
Luo did not report her breach in respect of the CRL Order to her employer but took various steps to conceal it, including falsely represented to the compliance department that she had arranged prior internal stock transfer to cover the short position.
The SFC considered Luo’s conduct called into question her fitness and properness to be a licensed person. The SFC considers Luo’s failure to adhere to her employer’s short selling procedures and the steps she took to cover up the error from her employer as unacceptable.
Pursuant to General Principle 1 of the Code of Conduct, all licensed persons are required to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of their clients and the integrity of the market when conducting regulated activities. Further, General Principle 2 of the Code of Conduct requires all licensed persons to act with due skill, care and diligence, in the best interests of its clients and the integrity of the market.
Readers should note that Section 170(1) of the SFO prohibits “naked” or “uncovered” short selling. It creates a criminal offence for a person to sell securities at or through a recognized stock market unless at the time of the sale, he (or his client, if he is an agent) has a presently exercisable and unconditional right to vest the securities in the purchaser of them, or believes and has reasonable grounds to believe that he (or his client, as the case may be) has such a right.
For the avoidance of doubt, section 170 applies only to short sales conducted at or through a recognized stock market, i.e., at present, the SEHK. It does not apply to off-exchange short sales.
On 19 March 2015, the Honorable Mr. Justice Hartmann, chairman of the MMT, has fixed a hearing date for the proceedings commenced by the SFC against Mr. Andrew Left (“Mr. Left”) of Citron Research in relation to alleged market misconduct involving the publication of a research report on Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited (“Evergrande”) in June 2012.
On 22 December 2014, the SFC commenced proceedings in the MMT against Mr. Left, alleging market misconduct involving the publication of a research report on Evergrande, a company listed on the SEHK on 5 December 2009, in June 2012. Mr. Left resides in the US and is the head of Citron Research, a US-based publisher of research reports on listed companies.
The SFC alleges that on 21 June 2012, Mr. Left published a report on Citron Research’s website (www.citronresearch.com) that contained false and misleading information about Evergrande. The report stated, inter alia, that Evergrande was insolvent and had consistently presented fraudulent information to the investing public. Following the publication of the report, the share price of Evergrande fell sharply on the same day. In fact, the share price of Evergrande reached a high of HK$4.52 in the morning but then declined sharply to a day low of HK$3.6, down 19.6% from the previous day’s close of HK$4.48. The stock closed at HK$3.97 which was 11.4% down from the previous day’s closing price. By comparison, the Hang Seng Index declined 1.3% on the same day
Further, the SFC alleges that shortly before publishing the report, Left short sold 4.1 million shares of Evergrande which he subsequently bought back, making a notional profit of over HK$2.8 million. Mr. Left made a total realized profit of approximately HK$1.7 million.
The MMT has now reserved 22 February to 8 March 2016 for the hearing.
For further details, please refer to:
On 20 March 2015, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) today upheld an appeal by Pacific Sun Advisors Limited (“Pacific Sun”) and its director Mr. Andrew Pieter Mantel (“Mr. Mantel”) in relation to issuing advertisements to promote a collective investment scheme (“CIS”) without the authorization of the SFC.
On 21 March 2013, the Eastern Magistracy acquitted Pacific Sun and its director Mr. Mantel for four counts of issuing advertisements to promote a CIS without the authorization of the SFC in contravention of section 103 of the SFO.
The SFC alleged that between November and December 2011, the defendants issued an advertisement on the corporate website of Pacific Sun promoting a CIS called “Pacific Sun Greater China Equities Fund” (the “Fund”) without the authorization of the SFC. It was also alleged that on or around 2 and 3 December 2011, the defendants issued an advertisement regarding the launch of the Fund to the public by email without the authorization of the SFC.
During three days of evidence, the defendants submitted that they intended to sell interests in the units of the Fund only to professional investors and so the advertisements did not require authorization by the SFC under a statutory exemption. The SFC, on the other hand, submitted that the exemption did not permit advertisements that had not been authorized by the SFC to be issued to the public and that in this case there was no evidence that the interests in the Fund had only been sold to professional investors. The Magistrate accepted the defendant’s argument and ruled that the advertisements did not constitute invitations to the public to invest in the fund.
The case in the CFI
Subsequently, the SFC appealed the decision. On 27 January 2015, the CFI overturned the acquittals of Pacific Sun and Mr. Mantel. The SFC argued that the acquittal decision was based on legal errors. The CFI agreed and ordered the case to be remitted back to the Magistrate for reconsideration as the advertisements in question did not fall within the exemption in section 103(3)(k) of the SFO, which applies if the securities are or are intended to be disposed of only to professional investors. The CFI made it clear that the exemption only applies where the advertisements states on its face that the terms of the offer are limited to professional investors. As a result, Pacific Sun and Mantel were charged with four counts of issuing advertisements to promote a CIS without the authorization of the SFC in contravention of section 103 of the SFO.
The SFC considered that this ruling protects retail investors from the risks of direct marketing of inappropriate or risky investment products.
The case in Tsuen Wan Magistrate’s Court
On 10 June 2014, Pacific Sun and Mr. Mantel were convicted at the Tsuen Wan Magistrates’ Court on four charges of issuing advertisements to promote a CIS without the authorization of the SFC. Pacific Sun was fined HK$20,000 and Mantel was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months.
The case in the CFA
The ruling of the CFA on 20 March 2015 overturned the abovementioned decision of the CFI on the interpretation of section 103 of the SFO. Pacific Sun and Mantel were acquitted after they argued successfully that they could rely upon an exclusion contained in section 103(3)(k) of the SFO. As a result, the acquittal verdict at the Eastern Magistracy stands.
The CFA held that the CFI erred in its ruling in that the exclusion applies even if the intention to dispose of the securities or interests in a CIS only to professional investors is not expressed in the advertisement, invitation, or document. The CFA clarified that the burden of establishing that the exclusion applies rests on the defendant and not on the SFC, and that the professional investor exemption would not apply if a person published an unauthorized offer to the public and sold the advertised securities to a retail investor.
The SFC will further study the CFA’s decision to determine whether there should be any proposal to amend section 103 of the SFO.
Pursuant to section 103 of the SFO, it is an offence to make an offer of investments to the public unless the circumstances of the offer are in accordance with the permitted routes of doing so (e.g. with the authorization of the SFC). However, there is an exemption under section 103(3)(k) of the SFO, which states that an advertisement does not need SFC authorization where the advertisement is in respect of securities, structured products or interests in a CIS that are or are intended to be disposed of only to professional investors.
The significance of the CFA’s ruling is that advertisements of CIS that may be unsuitable for retail investors can be issued to the general public even if the issuer only intends to sell them to professional investors. It also means a contravention of section 103 of the SFO, which occurs upon the issue of a relevant unauthorized offer to the public, can only be established well after the offer to the public has been issued.
Despite this, readers should take care in issuing such offers of investment to the public. For the avoidance of risk, readers may consider explicitly stating on the face of the document that the terms of the offer are limited to professional investors.
For further details, please refer to:
The article is for general information purpose only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice.
Receipt of this newsletter indicates that CompliancePlus has been using your email address to market to you the compliance services that CompliancePlus is able to provide you.
CompliancePlus provides compliance consulting services to financial companies, hedge fund managers and individuals. Our dedicated team of compliance officers has years of professional experience equipped with in-depth knowledge of both functional and compliance experience in managing and minimizing regulatory, operational and reputational risks. By partnering with CompliancePlus, our clients gain access to compliance solutions that they can trust and the latest knowledge of regulatory policies and procedures.
For enquiries, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org or call at (852) 3487-6903.
To subscribe, update your email address or unsubscribe, please email email@example.com