scholarly journals Hong Kong’s Public Enforcement Model of Investor Protection

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. DONALD ◽  
Paul W.H. CHEUK
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Investor Protection ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Financial Centre ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Private And Public

AbstractThe market of a successful financial centre must be efficient, orderly, and fair, which requires that investor protection rules be enforced effectively. While a substantial literature exists promoting privately driven enforcement of investor protection rules, there is a growing consensus that enforcement action by public bodies is likely to be more important for most markets than privately initiated litigation. Hong Kong exemplifies this point. In Hong Kong, public authorities carry almost the entire burden of enforcing corporate and securities laws. Yet Hong Kong functions at a high level of quality globally despite operating a market in which most companies are foreign-incorporated—often originating from jurisdictions with reputations for governance that are middling at best—and trading takes place in multiple currencies. To revisit the debate on the determinants of effective corporate and securities law enforcement, this paper evaluates the enforcement of investor protection laws in Hong Kong. The paper first examines the institutional context, presenting key corporate and securities regulation and explaining avenues for private and public actions. It looks at the powers and competencies of the relevant supervisory authorities, including the stock exchange, which has a quasi-public role in regulating the market. Then, using publicly available data supplemented through interviews with agency staff, the paper presents Hong Kong’s enforcement “inputs” (funding and staffing) and “outputs” (actions and sanctions) for the main public enforcers. We find evidence that the Hong Kong public enforcement model effectively disciplines even its dangerous environment of foreign companies, controlling shareholders, and complex, international groups, and might be able better to do so exactly because of a focus on public, rather than private, enforcement.

Private and Public Enforcement of Securities Regulation

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howell E. Jackson ◽  
Jeffery Y. Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Financial Stability ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Banking Regulation ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Valuation Effects ◽  
Cross Listing ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the impact of private and public enforcement of securities regulation on the development of capital markets. After a review of the literature, it considers empirical findings related to private and public enforcement as measured by formal indices and resources, with particular emphasis on the link between enforcement intensity and technical measures of financial market performance. It then analyses the impact of cross-border flows of capital, valuation effects, and cross-listing decisions by corporate issuers before turning to a discussion of whether countries that dedicate more resources to regulatory reform behave differently in some areas of market activities. It also explores the enforcement of banking regulation and its relationship to financial stability and concludes by focusing on direct and indirect, resource-based evidence on the efficacy of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement actions.

Private and Public Enforcement of EU Investor Protection Regulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaele Dambrosio ◽  
Stefano Montemaggi ◽  
Filippo Annunziata ◽  
Giorgio Afferni ◽  
Mads Andenas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Investor Protection ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Private And Public

Part III Regulation of Financial Products, 6 Securities Offerings

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arner Douglas W ◽  
Hsu Berry FC ◽  
Goo Say H ◽  
Johnstone Syren ◽  
Lejot Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Public Offerings ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter looks at financial products and their regulation in relation to listings of securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK). Hong Kong’s system for listing and public offerings of securities is largely based on the pre-FSMA 2000 system of the United Kingdom. As such, it is based on a statutory framework established by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) and the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The chapter explains how non-statutory controls on offers of securities fall into two broad classes: securities to be admitted to listing and those which are not to be listed. The legal and regulatory framework of Hong Kong addressing public offerings and listings of company securities covers: private and public companies; public offerings and prospectus requirements; the means by which a company’s securities can become listed; preparation of prospectuses and listing documents; and continuing obligations of being listed.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

Hong Kong and Shanghai: current and/or future international financial centres?

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-193
Author(s):  
John Adams ◽  
Andrew YC Wong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Centre ◽  
Future Success ◽  
The Future ◽  
Future Policy ◽  
First Time

Purpose – This paper publishes summary results for the first time of a major survey of senior financial practitioners undertaken in Hong Kong and Shanghai in 2005, and compares these with the Global Financial Centre Index first created in 2007 to determine the extent to which both are consistent. Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on a detailed survey and utilizes principal-components analysis to determine the primary factors relevant to the development of both cities as international financial centres (IFCs) and those which the respondents consider will be relevant in the future. Findings – The paper demonstrates that the key “success factors” for both cities in 2005 remain very important in the global financial centres index (GFCI) analysis ten years later but not necessarily by the same ranking. We also found that a number of the “primary” factors change when respondents are asked to consider future success factors. Research limitations/implications – The survey was conducted ten years ago; however, the results continue to have significant reliability and validity - especially when compared with the results of the GFCI report of 2014. Practical implications – The paper should enable policy makers and practitioners to better understand the future policy environment needed for extending the financial centre status of both Hong Kong and Shanghai. Originality/value – This is the first time (some) of the survey findings that have ever been published, and they represent a rich source of information – however, the authors will be examining the survey data for future publications.

Organizational Imprinting and Response to Institutional Complexity: Evidence from Publicly-Traded Chinese State-Owned Firms in Hong Kong

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yifan Wei
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Organizational Response ◽  
Institutional Complexity ◽  
Organizational Responses ◽  
Organizational Attributes ◽  
State Directors ◽  
Chinese State ◽  
Organizational Imprinting

ABSTRACTThis study seeks to answer the following question: What are the organizational attributes that influence organizational responses to institutional complexity? Building on core ideas of organizational imprinting, I argue that organizational response is influenced by the imprint from the dominant logic of organizing during the founding period and from the institutional position an organization possessed at founding. Empirically, I examine the variation in board composition of Chinese state-owned firms listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange market. It is found that state-owned firms founded in the market logic dominant period tend to have more non-state directors on the board in that they were organized around the prescription of the market logic and more responsive to shareholders’ demands for legitimacy reasons. Besides, state-owned firms founded by central government agencies tend to have fewer non-state directors because they were born at the center of the socialist system to accomplish strategic goals of the central government and non-state directors may challenge the vested interests. This study contributes to the organizational imprinting and institutional literature and resonates with the contemporary call for a more systematic examination of organizational attributes that influence organizational responses to institutional complexity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document