1/18/2024

LW4657/LW5657 Company Law II (Topic 2)

Fundraising and Listing 1

Professor Virginia Harper Ho &

Professor Alexander Loke
School of Law
City University of Hong Kong

January 2024

Company Law (Winding Up and Misc. Prov.)

Ordinance (Cap. 32) [Hereinafter “Cap32”]
Pt II Share capital and Debentures
Pt XII Restriction on Sale of Shares and Offers of
Shares for Sale
Third Schedule (items for disclosure)
Fourth Schedule (items for disclosure)
Seventeenth Schedule (exempted offers)

2
1
 1/18/2024

Private investment

Parties
Process

Investor A
Shares

Corporation Investor B

Investor C

Public offering

Parties
Process

Investor A
Shares Reg
Investor A
Investor A
Investor A
Investor A
Investor A
Corporation Investor A
Investor B Investor A
Investor B Investor A
Investor B Investor A
Investor B Investor A
Investor B Investor A
Investor
Investor B
Investor B A1002
Investor B
Investor B
Investor C Investor B
Investor C Investor B
Investor
InvestorC Investor B
Investor
C32 B3045 2
 1/18/2024

The contest of ideas in

mandatory disclosure
Jensen & Meckling, “Theory of the Firm” (1976) 3 Journal
of Finance and Economics 305
Rebuttal: John C Coffee, “Market Failure and the
Economic Case for a Mandatory Disclosure System”
(1984) 70 Virginia L Rev 717

Debate revives: Virginia Harper Ho, "Nonfinancial Risk

Disclosure and the Costs of Private Ordering," (2018)
55(3) American Bus. L. J. 407;Madison Condon, "Market
Myopia’s Climate Bubble." (2022) Utah L. Rev. (2022).

Hypothetical JCL
1. Jelutong Cable Ltd is a HK registered company
owned by the Fung family. The company seeks
additional share capital of HK$50m to grow its
cable-laying business division.
2. At the request of John Fung, the chairman of the
board, the managers prepare a summary of the
business operations over the last 3 years, as well as
the plans for expansion (“Profile Statement”).
3. John Fung hopes to interest (a) the members of his
country club , and (b) members of the extended
Fung family to take up shares in JCL.
Advise John Fung on his proposed course of action.
6
3
 1/18/2024

Proposition 1:
Unless exempted, a document offering shares in
or debentures of a company to the public for
subscription or purchase is a covered
prospectus

“prospectus … (a) means any prospectus,

notice, circular, brochure, advertisement, or
other document – (i) offering any shares in or
debentures of a company … to the public for
subscription or purchase …”
Cap32 s. 2, Definition of prospectus
7

Proposition 2:
A covered prospectus must comply with the
prescribed requirements as to form and
content.

Non-compliance amounts to an offence,

punishable with a fine
Cap32 s. 38(1) read with s 38(1B)

8
4
 1/18/2024

Proposition 3:
Unless exempted, any form of application for
shares or debentures must be accompanied by
a prescribed prospectus.

Non-compliance amounts to an offence,

punishable with a fine
Cap32 s. 38(3)

Proposition 4:
The prescribed prospectus must be registered.

Non-compliance amounts to an offence,

punishable with a fine
Cap32 s. 38D(8)

10
5
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical JCL
1. Jelutong Cable Ltd is a HK registered company
owned by the Fung family. The company seeks
additional share capital of HK$50m to grow its
cable-laying business division.
2. At the request of John Fung, the chairman of the
board, the managers prepare a summary of the
business operations over the last 3 years, as well
as the plans for expansion (“Profile Statement”).
3. John Fung hopes to interest (a) the members of his
country club , and (b) members of the extended
Fung family to take up shares in JCL.
Advise John Fung on his proposed course of action.
11

Proposition 1:
Unless exempted, any document offering shares in or debentures of a company to the
public for subscription or purchase is a covered prospectus

“prospectus … means any prospectus, notice,

circular, brochure, advertisement, or other
document – (i) offering any shares in or
debentures of a company … to the public for
subscription or purchase …”
Cap32 s. 2, Definition of prospectus

12
6
 1/18/2024

Proposition 1:
Unless exempted, any document offering shares in or debentures of a company to the
public for subscription or purchase is a covered prospectus

Query:
A mere informational document?
Does it satisfy the alternative definition?

prospectus means (a) [any document]

(ii) calculated to invite offers by the public to
subscribe for or purchase …”
Cap32 s. 2, Definition of prospectus

13

“Offer to the public”

An essential element to the definition of prospectus (s 2)
Exemption from the obligation to issue covered prospectus with any form for
application of shares/debentures: s 38(3)(b)

“prospectus … (a) means any prospectus,

notice, circular, brochure, advertisement, or
other document – (i) offering any shares in or
debentures of a company … to the public for
subscription or purchase …”
Cap32 s. 2, Definition of prospectus

What amounts to an offering to the public”?

14
7
 1/18/2024

“Offer to the public”:

… [shall] be construed as including a reference

to offering them to any section of the public,
whether selected as members or debenture
holders of the company concerned or as
clients of the person issuing the prospectus or
in any other manner
Cap32 s. 48A(1)

15

“Offer to the public”

Lee v Evans (1964) 112 CLR 276 (HCA)

(SA) Registration of Business Names Act 1928-
1961 s 4(a)(1)
“[In respect of a registered business under the
Act]… no person shall use or make reference to
that business name in any invitation to the public
… to deposit money with or lend money to that
firm individual or corporation.”

Lee solicited investments in Chowilla Timber Supply Co from

one Owen Clause Broadbent (£200) and one John Noel
Broadbent (£100).
Held: No ‘invitation to the public’. 16
8
 1/18/2024

“Offer to the public”: Lee v Evans (1964) 112 CLR 276

Why?
• There was invitation to specific persons - but this did
not amount to an invitation to the public.
• Merely because the specific persons were members
of the public did not mean there was ‘an invitation to
the public’. (HCA reversed Full Court on this point.)

17

“Offer to the public”: Lee v Evans (1964) 112 CLR 276

Amongst the majority

Slightly different conceptions of the phrase
Barwick CJ:
(a) invitation to the public does not need to be universal, but it needs to be
general;
(b) the phrase may include a ‘section of the public.’

Kitto J (with whom Owen J agreed):

“I am of opinion that the magistrate was right in holding that
the expression "invitation to the public" means an invitation
made to the public generally and capable therefore of being
acted upon by any member of the public.”

Why does the difference

matter?
18
9
 1/18/2024

“Offer to the public”: Lee v Evans (1964) 112 CLR 276

Barwick CJ

“[T]he basic concept is that the invitation, though

not universal, is general; that it is an invitation to all
and sundry of some segment of the population at
large. This does not mean that it must be an
invitation to all the public either everywhere, or in
any particular community. How large a section of
the public must be addressed in a general invitation
for it to be an invitation to the public in the relevant
connexion must depend on the context of each
particular enactment and the circumstances of
each case.”
19

How does s. 48A(1) alter the common law understanding of the phrase…
“Offer to the public”?

… [shall] be construed as including a reference

to offering them to any section of the public,
whether selected as members or debenture
holders of the company concerned or as
clients of the person issuing the prospectus or
in any other manner
Cap32 s. 48A(1)

20
10
 1/18/2024

“Offer to the public”

An essential element to the definition of “prospectus”

SEC v Ralston Purina Co. (1953) 346 U.S. 119 at

125:
"The natural way to interpret the private offering
exemption is in light of the statutory purpose. Since
exempt transactions are those as to which ‘there is
no practical need for * * * (the bill's) application,’ the
applicability of [Section 4(2)] should turn on whether
the particular class of persons affected need the
protection of the Act. An offering to those who are
shown to be able to fend for themselves is a
transaction ‘not involving any public offering.' ".
Purposive
approach
21

“Offer to the public”:

An essential element to the definition of “prospectus”
** Corporate Affairs Commission v Australian Central
Credit Union (“CAC v ACCU”) [1985] HCA 64; (1985) 157 CLR 201
ACCU
credit union
u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u Sell units in unit
u u u u u u u u trust to
u u u u u u u u members of the
credit union
u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u

23,000
HQ

22
11
 1/18/2024

Offer to the public: CAC v ACCU

Issue: whether the proposed sale of units in trust to members

amounts to an “offer to the public”[of prescribed interest covered
by Companies (SA) Code s. 169]?
Offer by a Stranger with no rational connection btw the common
characteristics of the group and the nature of the offer?
Special relationship? Rational connection between the common
characteristic of members of a group and the offer made to them.
Consider these factors:
 Number of people comprising the group
 Nature and content of the offer
 Significance of any particular characteristic which identifies the
members of the group and any connection btw that
characteristic and the offer.

Analytical
approach
23

Hypothetical JCL
1. Jelutong Cable Ltd is a HK registered company
owned by the Fung family. The company seeks
additional share capital of HK$50m to grow its
cable-laying business division.
2. At the request of John Fung, the chairman of the
board, the managers prepare a summary of the
business operations over the last 3 years, as well
as the plans for expansion (“Profile Statement”).
3. John Fung hopes to interest (a) the members of his
country club , and (b) members of the extended
Fung family to take up shares in JCL.
Advise John Fung on his proposed course of action.
24
12
 1/18/2024

Proposition 2:
Unless exempted, a covered prospectus must
comply with the prescribed requirements.

What are these

prescribed
requirements?

25

Proposition 2:
Unless exempted, a covered prospectus must comply with the prescribed
requirements.

What are the prescribed requirements?

1. Content: s. 38
Language
Third Schedule
 Pt 1 Prescribed particulars
 Pt II Prescribed reports
Eighteenth Sch. Pt 1 statement
2. Registration by the Registrar of
Companies: s. 38D.
3. Advertising Restrictions: s. 38B
26
13
 1/18/2024

Proposition 2:
Unless exempted, a covered prospectus must comply with the prescribed
requirements.

Note Cap 32 s 38A

The Commission’s power to grant exemptions.

27

Exemptions 1:
Exclusions from the definition of ‘prospectus’
i.e. these offer documents are not considered
prospectuses: para (b) in definition of
‘’prospectus”+ Seventeenth Schedule

Small Offering Offers to no more

(≤ $5m) than 50 persons

Offers with min. Professional Qualifying persons

consid. (≥$0.5m) investors (ESOP)

14
 1/18/2024

Exemptions 2
Exemption from the prescribed
requirements found in s. 38

Securities equiv.
Rights issue to currently listed
securities

3. Exemptions (Safe-harbours)
How do these dovetail with HK’s aim to be an
international financial centre?

USA EU

AU
CHINA
HK

30
15
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical PT Jelutong
1. PT Jelutong is an Indonesian registered company
owned by the Fung family. The company seeks
additional share capital of HK$50m to grow its
cable-laying business division.
2. At the request of John Fung, the chairman of the
board, the managers prepare a summary of the
business operations over the last 3 years, as well as
the plans for expansion (“Profile Statement”).
3. John Fung hopes to interest (a) the members of his
country club in HK, and (b) members of the
extended Fung family to take up shares in JCL.
Advise John Fung on his proposed course of action.
31

Hypo PT Jelutong (Hint)

1. Does “Pt II: Share Capital and Debentures”
still apply?
 See s. 38 and definition of company (s. 2)
2. Consider s. 342(1) in “Pt XII: Restrictions on
Sale of Shares and Offer of Shares for Sale”

16
 1/18/2024

Summary of material covered thus far

1. Unless exempted, a document offering shares
in or debentures of a company to the public for
subscription or purchase is a covered
prospectus.
2. Unless exempted, a covered prospectus must
comply with the prescribed requirements as to
form and content.
3. Unless exempted, any form of application for
shares or debentures must be accompanied by
a prescribed prospectus

Summary of material covered thus far

cont.
4. Exemptions from (a) definition of
prospectus; (b) prescribed form and content.
5. Contravention results in criminal liability

How about civil liability toward investors?

17
 1/18/2024

Action for Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation

Rescission (against
Damages counterparty to
contract)

Innocent
Misrepresentation Fraudulent Negligent misrepresentation
Ordinance s. 3(1) misrepresentation misrepresentation
X – (only under MA s.
2(2)

Revision on the Law of Misrepresentation

Rescission (equity):
All kinds of misrepresentations
Subject to bars

Action for damages (common law)

Deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation)
Derry v Peek (1889)
Negligent misrepresentation:
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963)

Damages under the Misrepresentation Ordinance

Premise: action between contracting parties
Section 3(1) The fiction of fraud
Section 3(2) Damages in lieu of rescission

18
 1/18/2024

STARTING THE ANALYSIS: Was there a misrepresentation?

The King v Kylsant (Lord) (1931)
Criminal conviction under the Larceny Act s. 84
Issue: “whether statement false in any material particular…” (debenture stock)

Prospectus: "The interest on the present issue of debenture stock will amount to 100,000
pounds per annum. Although this company, in common with other shipping companies, has
suffered from the depression in the shipping industry, the audited accounts of the
company show that during the past ten years the average annual balance available (including
profits of the insurance fund) after providing for depreciation and interest on existing
debenture stocks, has been sufficient to pay the interest on the present issue more than five
times over. After providing for all taxation, depreciation of the fleet, &c., adding to the
reserves and payment of dividends on the preference stocks, the dividends on the ordinary
stock during the last seventeen years have been as follows"
[table of the dividends paid from the year 1911 to the year 1927 inclusive]
[dividends varied from 5 up to 8 per cent / 1926 - 4 per cent / 1927 again rising to 5 per cent]
Omissions:
1. For a number of years preceding date on which the prospectus was
issued, the company had sustained losses on its trading and investment
income, after allowing for depreciation; or
2. The dividends for those years had ultimately been paid out of income of
a nonrecurring character derived from the abnormal years of the 1914-
18 war.

Is there a broader representation contained in statements

taken as a whole? The King v Kylsant (Lord) (1931)
Judge directed the jury:
"Though the express statements may individually be true, is there omission
of statements or material which renders the prospectus as a whole false?”

Held: The direction was not wrong.

Learning Point:
Apart from the individual representations contained in
the distinct express statements, there might be a
broader representation to be gathered from the
statements taken together.

19
 1/18/2024

Can a statement of intention amount to a misrepresentation?

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1884)

Edgington Company

Debenture
Prospectus

Objects:
1. Buildings The board of directors
2. Horses and vans • Fitzmaurice
Alleged • Snow
misrepresentations: 3. Develop biz
• Taylor etc.
1. Mortgage (£21.5k) –
instalments
2. No other mortgage
3. Real purpose: liquidity
crunch

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1884)

Action in deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation)

against directors
The elements:
 Untrue fact
 Made knowingly
 Intending that statement be relied upon
 Reliance upon statement

Alleged misrepresentations:
1. Mortgage (£21.5k) – instalments
2. No other mortgage
3. Real purpose: address liquidity crunch

20
 1/18/2024

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1884)

Debenture
Alleged misrepresentations:
Prospectus
1. Mortgage (£21.5k) – instalments
2. No other mortgage
Objects:
3. Real purpose: address liquidity
1. Buildings
crunch
2. Horses and vans
3. Develop biz

Issue:
Can a statement of purpose be a statement of fact?

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1884)

Issue: Can a statement of purpose be a statement of fact?
“… the state of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of
his digestion. It is true that it is very difficult to prove what the
state of a man's mind at a particular time is, but if it can be
ascertained it is as much a fact as anything else. A
misrepresentation as to the state of a man's mind is, therefore,
a misstatement of fact.”
- per Bowen LJ (at p. 483)

Other learning points:

1. Implied assertions
2. Half-truths (incomplete disclosures)
3. Causation/ Inducement

21
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical HMX
1. HMX Rail Ltd raised $800m through an issue of
common shares on the back of a prospectus.
2. The prospectus stated that its subsidiary in China
has been given operating rights over the high
speed rail-link between Shanghai-Wuhan-Chengdu.
This is inaccurate. In fact, the Central Government
was only considering opening up the market for
private rail operators.
3. When this was revealed the share price fell from
the issue price of $800 to $100. Kenneth Lee, who
had paid $80,000 to subscribe for the shares, is
deeply unhappy.
Advise Kenneth Lee.
43

Hypothetical HMX: Suit against HMX Ltd.

Possible Actions:
• Rescission: Re Pacaya Rubber (1914)
• Action in deceit (common law)
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
“[F]raud is proved when it is shewn that a false representation
has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth,
or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I
have treated the second and third as distinct cases, I think the
third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a
statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in
the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement being
fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its
truth.”
(At p. 374, per Lord Herschell)

44
22
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical HMX: Suit against HMX Ltd.

• Action under the Misrepresentation Ordinance
3-(1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a
misrepresentation has been made to him by another party
thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then,
if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable
to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation
been made fraudulently,
that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the
misrepresentation was not made fraudulently,
unless he proves that he had reasonable grounds to believe and
did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts
represented were true.

45

Cap 32 s.40B. Right to damages and compensation not

affected
A person is not debarred from obtaining damages or other
compensation from a company by reason only of—
(a) his holding or having held shares in the
company; or
(b) his having any right—
(i) to apply or subscribe for shares; or
(ii) to be included in the register of the company in
respect of shares.

23
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical HMX: Suit against the directors of HMX Ltd.

 Rescission
 Misrepresentation Ordinance s. 3(1) and (2)
 Action in deceit.
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
“[F]raud is proved when it is shewn that a false representation
has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth,
or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I
have treated the second and third as distinct cases, I think the
third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a
statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in
the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement being
fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its
truth.”
(At p. 374, per Lord Herschell)

47

Hypothetical HMX: Suit against the directors of HMX Ltd.

 Action in negligent misrepresentation
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963)
1. Duty of care
 Reasonable foreseeability
 Proximity
2. Breach of duty of care
3. Damage Proximity?
• Assumption of
responsibility
• Knowledge of possible
reliance
• Fair, just and
reasonable

48
24
 1/18/2024

Hypothetical HMX (vers. 2)

1. HMX Rail Ltd raised $800m through an issue of
common shares on the back of a prospectus.
2. The prospectus stated that its subsidiary in China has
been given operating rights over the high speed rail-
link between Shanghai-Wuhan-Chengdu. This is
inaccurate. In fact, the Central Government was only
considering opening up the market for private rail
operators.
3. When this was revealed the share price fell from the
issue price of $800 to $100. Before this was revealed,
Jennifer Chee paid $80,000 for the shares she bought
from the secondary market. They are now worth only
$1,000. She is is deeply unhappy.
Advise Jennifer Chee.
49

Subsequent purchasers: suit against the directors of

HMX Ltd for misrepresentation in prospectus?
“intention that statement be relied upon” - whether
prospectus exhausted?
 Action in deceit:
Peek v Gurney (1873)
? Duty
 Action in negligent misrepresentation. of care ?

Possfund Custodian Trustee v

Diamond (1996)
Al Nakib Investments v
• Changed market conditions
Longcroft (1990, ChD)
• Superadded purpose: inform
Whether directors owe a
and encourage after-market
duty of care toward
purchasers (factual question
 subscribers
with legal consequences)
 subsequent purchasers
Read esp. All ER 787-788
(2o market)
50
25
 1/18/2024

Subsequent purchasers: suit against the auditors of

HMX Ltd for misrepresentation in prospectus?
 Action in negligent misrepresentation. auditors

? Duty
of care ?

Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (Revision)

Whether auditors owe a duty of care toward investors who
make investment decisions relying on the audited financial
statements

51

The immediate reaction to Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337

Fraud threshold too onerous!  (UK) Directors Liability Act
1890  (HK) Company Law (WUMP) Ordinance (Cap32)
s. 40 Civil liability for misstatements in prospectus
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a prospectus invites
persons to subscribe for shares in or debentures of a company, the
following persons shall be liable to pay compensation to all persons who
subscribe for any shares or debentures on the faith of the prospectus for
the loss or damage they may have sustained by reason of any untrue
statement included therein, that is to say-
(a) every person who is a director of the company at the time of the issue of
the prospectus;
(b) every person who has authorized himself to be named and is named in
the prospectus as a director or as having agreed to become a director either
immediately or after an interval of time;
(c) every person being a promoter of the company; and
(d) every person who has authorized the issue of the prospectus
***

26
 1/18/2024

Cap32 s. 40(1) The elements

1. Who is liable?
2. Who is entitled to sue?
3. What are the elements?
 Untrue statement
 Subscribe for shares on the faith of the
prospectus
 Loss/damage
4. Defences esp. s. 40(2)(d)(i) and (ii)

Hypothetical JinenTech (JT)

1. JinenTech Ltd is a biotech company developing drugs to
fight lymphoma (cancer). Early and development stage
financing was provided by Cedar Capital Inc, who took
up convertible preference shares.
2. Having successfully developed the drug, Jinentech
would like to like to raise capital for manufacture and
worldwide distribution of the drug. It proposes to do
this through an IPO of its common shares.
3. Cedar Capital Inc would like to cash out – by converting
its preference shares into common shares and selling
its shareholdings in the IPO along with Jinentech.
4. Suppose there are misstatements in the prospectus.
Are the shareholders entitled to sue under Cap32 s.
40?
54
27
 1/18/2024

The immediate reaction to Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337

(HK) Company Law (WUMP) Ordinance (Cap32)

s. 40 Civil liability for misstatements in prospectus

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a prospectus
invites persons to subscribe for shares in or debentures of a
company, the following persons shall be liable to pay
compensation to all persons who subscribe for any shares or
debentures on the faith of the prospectus for the loss or
damage they may have sustained by reason of any untrue
statement included therein, that is to say-
(a) every person who is a director of the company at the time of the
issue of the prospectus;
(b) every person who has authorized himself to be named and is
named in the prospectus as a director or as having agreed to become
a director either immediately or after an interval of time;
(c) every person being a promoter of the company; and
(d) every person who has authorized the issue of the prospectus
***

The immediate reaction to Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337

(HK) Company Law (WUMP) Ordinance (Cap32)

s. 40-***(7) It is hereby declared that, for the
purposes of this section, persons who subscribe
for any shares or debentures *** includes
persons specified in the Twenty-second Schedule.

Twenty-second Sch.
1. Persons who subscribe for or purchase shares
or debentures pursuant to an offer in a
prospectus.
28
 1/18/2024

SFO s 108
Civil liability for inducing others to invest money in certain cases
(1) Where a person makes any fraudulent misrepresentation, reckless
misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation by which another person is
induced-
(a) to enter into or offer to enter into-
(i) an agreement to acquire, dispose of, subscribe for or underwrite securities; or
(ii) a regulated investment agreement or an agreement to acquire, dispose of,
subscribe for or underwrite any other structured product; or (Replaced 8 of 2011
s. 7)

(b) to acquire an interest in or participate in, or offer to acquire an interest in

or participate in, a collective investment scheme, the first-mentioned person
shall, whether or not he also incurs any other liability (whether under this
Part or otherwise), be liable to pay compensation by way of damages to the
other person for any pecuniary loss that the other person has sustained as a
result of the reliance by the other person on the misrepresentation.

SFO s 108 Civil liability for inducing others to invest

money in certain cases

***
(2) For the purposes of this section, where a company or
other body corporate has made any fraudulent
misrepresentation, reckless misrepresentation or
negligent misrepresentation by which another person is
induced to do any act referred to in subsection (1)(a) or
(b), any person who was a director of the company or
body corporate at the time when the misrepresentation
was made shall, unless it is proved that he did not
authorize the making of the misrepresentation, be
presumed also to have made the misrepresentation.

29
 1/18/2024

SFO s 277 Disclosure of false or misleading information

inducing transactions
(1) Disclosure of false or misleading information inducing transactions
takes place when, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, a person discloses,
circulates or disseminates, or authorizes or is concerned in the
disclosure, circulation or dissemination of, information that is likely-
(a) to induce another person to subscribe for securities, or deal in futures
contracts, in Hong Kong;
(b) to induce the sale or purchase in Hong Kong of securities by another
person; or
(c) to maintain, increase, reduce or stabilize the price of securities, or the
price for dealings in futures contracts, in Hong Kong,
if-
(i) the information is false or misleading as to a material fact, or is false
or misleading through the omission of a material fact; and
(ii) the person knows that, or is reckless or negligent as to whether, the
information is false or misleading as to

SFO s 281 Civil liability for market misconduct

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who has
committed a relevant act in relation to market
misconduct shall, whether or not he also incurs any other
liability (whether under this Part or otherwise), be liable
to pay compensation by way of damages to any other
person for any pecuniary loss sustained by the other
person as a result of the market misconduct, whether or
not the loss arises from the other person having entered
into a transaction or dealing at a price affected by the
market misconduct.
(2) No person shall be liable to pay compensation under
subsection (1) unless it is fair, just and reasonable in the
circumstances of the case that he should be so liable.

30
 1/18/2024

Remedial orders under SFO s. 213(2)(b)

(1) Where—
(a) a person has—
(i) contravened—
(A) any of the relevant provisions;
(2) it appears … to the Commission that any of the matters referred to in
paragraph (a)(i) to (v) has occurred, is occurring or may occur,
the Court of First Instance, on the application of the Commission, may, subject to
subsection (4), make one or more of the orders specified in subsection (2).
(2) The orders specified for the purposes of subsection (1) are—
(a) an order restraining or prohibiting the occurrence or the continued
occurrence of any of the matters referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) to
(v);

(b) where a person has been, or it appears that a person has been, is or
may become, involved in any of the matters referred to in
subsection (1)(a)(i) to (v), whether knowingly or otherwise,
an order requiring the person to take such steps as the Court of
First Instance may direct,
including steps to restore the parties to any transaction to the
position in which they were before the transaction was entered
into;

Remedial orders under SFO s. 213(2)(b)

SFC v Qunxing [2018] 4 HKC 465

Misleading disclosures and non-disclosures in financial statements:

(1) Turnover over- stated
(2) Loans not stated
(3) Restructuring in PRC not disclosed
31
 1/18/2024

Remedial orders under SFO s. 213(2)(b)

SFC v Qunxing [2018] 4 HKC 465
Learning Points:
(1) Substantive provision. Not merely a representative
mechanism (procedural in nature). [47]-[50].
(2) Persons against whom order may be made.
Not limited to counterparties of those who have
suffered damage.
(3) Broad discretion, limited only by s 213(4):
 Whether desirable that order should be made;
 The order will not unfairly prejudice any person.
(4) Broad-brush approach: [57]-[61].
 Query: whether this goes too far.

32