Market Misconduct Tribunal: SFC Enforcement, Penalties, and Practical Considerations

The Market Misconduct Tribunal plays a crucial role in enforcing regulations and maintaining market integrity in Hong Kong. It's a powerful tool for the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) to hold individuals and companies accountable for their actions.

The SFC can refer cases to the Tribunal if it suspects market misconduct, such as insider dealing or false trading. The Tribunal then investigates and determines whether the allegations are true.

If the Tribunal finds the accused guilty, it can impose penalties, including fines and suspension or expulsion from the securities industry. These penalties can be severe, with fines reaching up to HK$10 million.

Worth a look: Central Securities Depository

The Chairmen of the Market Misconduct Tribunal (MMT) are appointed by the Chief Executive, but only after a recommendation from the Chief Justice. This is a unique process that sets the MMT apart from other tribunals.

The Chairman sits with two other members, who are prominent business and professional leaders in Hong Kong. These members are appointed by the Financial Secretary, who has been given the authority to do so by the Chief Executive.

The MMT is required to hold all of its proceedings in public, unless there's a valid reason to hold a private session. This ensures transparency and accountability in the tribunal's decision-making process.

The current Chairmen of the MMT are a distinguished group of individuals, including Mr. Michael John HARTMANN, G.B.S.Mr. Kenneth KWOK Hing-wai, S.B.S., S.C., J.P.Mr. Michael Victor LUNN, G.B.S.Mr. Ian Charles McWALTERS, G.B.S., J.P.

You might like: Mr Market

The SFC Enforcement process is a critical aspect of the Market Misconduct Tribunal. The SFC has the power to take regulatory action against individuals or companies found liable for market misconduct.

Under the SFO, s. 213, the SFC can make various orders, including restraining or prohibiting further market misconduct, requiring a person to take steps to rectify the situation, and declaring transactions void or voidable. These orders can be used to support compensatory orders, such as freezing assets to ensure they are available for compensation if the person is found liable.

The SFC can also apply for protective orders under the SFO, s. 214, which can include restraining or requiring a person to carry out certain acts, disqualifying a person from being a director of a listed company, or making other orders to regulate the conduct of the business or affairs of the listed company.

A recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal has raised the issue of whether disciplinary proceedings against licensed and registered persons are civil or not.

The decision has sparked a debate about new tactics to respond to SFC enforcement action, with some arguing that it may be more effective to challenge the civil nature of these proceedings.

The fact that disciplinary proceedings are being questioned as civil or not is a significant development that may impact how individuals and companies respond to SFC enforcement action.

Understanding the nature of these proceedings is crucial for those who need to respond to SFC enforcement action, as it can affect the approach taken and the potential outcomes.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal's decision is a recent example of the evolving landscape of SFC enforcement, and it's essential to stay informed about these developments to navigate them effectively.

For your interest: Law Enforcement Mortgage Loans

A person who is the subject of allegations of market misconduct may be subjected to proceedings under the SFO, s. 213 prior to or in parallel with the institution of Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings.

The court applies the SFO, s. 213 independently of the Market Misconduct Tribunal, meaning a finding of liability by the tribunal is not a precondition to the court making an order under s. 213.

A court can make an order under s. 213 if it is satisfied that market misconduct has occurred, regardless of the tribunal's findings.

A court will need to be satisfied that a market misconduct has in fact taken place, even if the Market Misconduct Tribunal has found liability.

Compensation orders have often been ordered following findings of liability by the Market Misconduct Tribunal, but a court's independence means this is not a guarantee.

A different take: Superannuation Complaints Tribunal

A compensation order under SFO section 213 can be made to require a person to take steps to restore the parties to any transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into.

This type of order can be made in the absence of a finding of liability by the Market Misconduct Tribunal, as long as the court is satisfied that market misconduct has occurred.

The court has the power to make various orders under SFO section 213, including an order to restrain or prohibit further market misconduct, an order for the person engaged in market misconduct to take such steps as the court may direct, and an order declaring transactions to be void or voidable.

A court may use SFO section 213 to support compensatory orders by freezing assets of a person alleged to have engaged in market misconduct.

The court can also make ancillary orders necessary in consequence of the making of any other orders under SFO section 213.

Here are some examples of the types of orders that can be made under SFO section 213:

Market Misconduct Tribunal penalties can be severe, causing reputational damage and financial losses. A finding of liability by the Market Misconduct Tribunal can result in fines of up to HK$8 million for listed companies and their directors.

Fines are just one of the possible penalties, and the Tribunal can also order disgorgement, which means requiring market participants to give up any profits made or losses avoided due to misconduct. Disgorgement can be a significant financial burden.

Disqualification from being a director of a listed corporation or participating in its management is another possible penalty, lasting up to 5 years. This can be a serious blow to a company's operations and reputation.

Here are some of the possible penalties imposed by the Market Misconduct Tribunal:

In Hong Kong, the Market Misconduct Tribunal can impose serious penalties on those found liable for market misconduct. Fines of up to HK$8 million can be imposed on listed companies and their directors who fail to disclose insider information on a timely basis.

These penalties can have a significant impact on a company's reputation and bottom line. Disgorgement orders, which require individuals or companies to give up any profits made or losses avoided as a result of the misconduct, can also be imposed.

Disgorgement orders can be calculated using one of three tests: the actual profit realized test, the notional profit test, or the notional loss avoided test. The specific test used will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Here are the possible penalties that can be imposed by the Market Misconduct Tribunal:

In some cases, the power to impose fines may be considered unconstitutional, as the court may view the offense as criminal rather than civil in nature.

Cost Orders are a significant aspect of the penalties and fines associated with market misconduct in Hong Kong. They require a person found liable to pay the costs of the Hong Kong government and the legal, investigative, and expert costs of the SFC in the proceedings.

These costs can be substantial, often exceeding the amount of a fine or an order for disgorgement. In fact, financial liability under cost orders can be so high that it may be more than the costs incurred by the person found liable in defending themselves.

You might enjoy: Lower of Cost or Market

Costs under a cost order are separate from the costs a person found liable has already incurred in defending themselves, including their own legal fees and fees for any experts retained to assist in their defense.

Here are some key facts about cost orders:

A cost order can have a major impact on a person found liable, and it's essential to understand the potential financial implications of being held responsible for market misconduct.

Disgorgement Orders can be a serious consequence of market misconduct in Hong Kong. A disgorgement order requires a person found liable to give up any profits they made or losses they avoided as a result of the misconduct.

The Market Misconduct Tribunal has defined three different tests for disgorgement: the actual profit realized test, the notional profit test, and the notional loss avoided test. These tests determine how much a person must give up in a disgorgement order.

A disgorgement order can be a significant financial burden, as it requires a person to give up all profits made or losses avoided as a result of the misconduct. This can be a substantial amount of money.

Here are the three tests for disgorgement defined by the Market Misconduct Tribunal:

In practice, disgorgement orders can be complex and may require a court to determine the correct amount to be disgorged.

A person found to have mishandled insider information may face civil action through the Hong Kong courts, which can take the form of proceedings by investors themselves or by the SFC.

The burden of paying compensation to investors who suffered a loss as a result of the misconduct can be heavy, potentially exceeding the burden of paying a fine or disgorging profit made or loss avoided.

In the absence of agreement between the SFC and the person found liable, the quantum of compensation under s. 213 of the SFO may be difficult to calculate.

The SFO includes a statutory cause of action for investors to seek compensation for losses resulting from market misconduct, including mishandling of insider information.

A court may make an order under s. 213 of the SFO to require the person to take steps to restore the parties to any transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into.

The SFC has used the SFO, s. 213 to support compensatory orders by freezing assets of a person who is alleged to have engaged in market misconduct.

Here are some possible orders that a court may make under s. 213 of the SFO:

Using insider information for personal gain can have severe consequences. A person found to have mishandled insider information may face civil action through the Hong Kong courts.

Investors can take advantage of a statutory right of action to seek compensation for losses resulting from market misconduct, including mishandling of insider information. This right of action arises independently of regulatory enforcement through the Market Misconduct Tribunal.

A person who breaches regulatory requirements in respect of the handling of insider information may be liable to pay compensation by way of damages to any other person who sustains any pecuniary loss as a result of the breach. Liability for compensation will only arise where it is fair, just and reasonable.

A finding of liability by the Market Misconduct Tribunal can result in regulatory action by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) beyond a mere compensation order. The SFC can take a number of orders, including restraining or prohibiting further market misconduct.

Some possible orders that can be made under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), section 213 include:

The courts have used the SFO, section 213 to support compensatory orders by freezing assets of a person who is alleged to have engaged in market misconduct.

In the context of insider dealing, determining the profit to be disgorged can be a complex issue.

The actual profit realized test applies when market prices haven't yet reflected the insider information.

In Re Dealings in the Shares of China Huiyan Juice Group Limited, the Market Misconduct Tribunal found that the market hadn't fully digested the insider information until September 5, so the actual profit realized test was applied.

The notional profit test applies when market prices have reflected the insider information.

In Re Dealings in the Shares of Mirabell International Holdings Limited, the Market Misconduct Tribunal found that the market had fully digested the insider information by March 3, so the notional profit test was applied.

Under the notional profit test, the profit to be disgorged is calculated based on the price at the time the market fully takes into account the insider information.

In the Mirabell case, the profit to be disgorged was calculated based on $5.83, the two-day weighted average price over February 29 and March 3.

For more insights, see: State Bank of Mauritius Limited

Tiger Asia Management LLC, a hedge fund based in New York, was banned by Hong Kong's Market Misconduct Tribunal from dealing in Hong Kong securities for four years.

The ban was a result of the tribunal's finding that Tiger Asia and its officers engaged in market misconduct.

The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) directly instituted proceedings in the MMT, which was a first-time occurrence.

The SFC obtained orders from the High Court that Tiger Asia and two of its senior officers pay approximately HK$45 million to affected investors.

The ban serves as a warning to those who trade in Hong Kong securities on the back of inside information.

A party dissatisfied with a finding or determination of the MMT may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law or with permission on a question of fact.

The Court of Appeal can also hear an appeal from a party against whom a sanction has been imposed under section 257 of the Ordinance.

Additional reading: Securities and Exchange Board of India

Calculating actual profit can be a complex task, as it requires determining when insider information or market misconduct has been fully reflected in market prices.

Expert evidence is often needed to make this determination, which can be a difficult exercise.

The Market Misconduct Tribunal may need to consider the timing of when insider information was fully digested or when market misconduct distorted market prices.

This can be illustrated by a hypothetical scenario where an individual buys a stock at $5 before coming into possession of insider information and sells it at $10 while in possession of that information.

The stock then slides to $7 over a period of 3 days after the insider information is released, but the market as a whole declines by 15% over that time.

It's possible that the individual may need to disgorge profit that exceeds their actual cash inflows from their misconduct.

The individual may face uncertainty in terms of liability under an order for disgorgement until the Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings complete.

In some cases, the Tribunal may only consider the decline in the stock price and market as a whole for a certain period of time, such as the first day after the release of the insider information.

Worth a look: Time in the Market vs Timing the Market Graph