SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

On the agreed facts the court was satisfied the companys business and affairs were conducted in a manner involving misfeasance/misconduct, misleading or withheld information and unfairly prejudicial to members, and that the 2nd respondent was partly responsible; absent fraud but on grounds of gross incompetence and abdication of responsibility, a disqualification order was appropriate; having regard to mitigation for admission and cooperation, the appropriate period was five years, with costs as agreed and leave to serve the order out of jurisdiction.

Citation
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Securities and Futures Commission; 2nd Respondent: Ong Hong Hoon
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Case Number
HCMP2524/2006
Procedural Posture
SFC Petition Under Securities and Futures Ordinance S214(2)(d) for Director Disqualification / Judgment on Carecraft Summary Settlement (carecraft Procedure)
Outcome
Disqualification order made against the 2nd respondent (Ong Hong Hoon) for five years
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Misfeasance, Misconduct, Misleading Disclosure, Breach of Listing Rules, Takeovers Code Breaches, Carecraft Procedure
Source Language
EN
Securities Law Company Law Corporate Governance Listing Regulation Civil Regulatory Enforcement Director Disqualification Misfeasance Misconduct +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securities and Futures Commission

Petitioner

Ong Hong Hoon

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

SFC Petition Under Securities and Futures Ordinance S214(2)(d) for Director Disqualification / Judgment on Carecraft Summary Settlement (carecraft Procedure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the companys business or affairs were conducted in a manner within s214(1) (misfeasance/misconduct, withholding information, unfair prejudice)
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd respondent was wholly or partly responsible for that conduct
  3. 3 Appropriate scope and duration of a disqualification order and applicable sentencing principles

Ratio Decidendi

On the agreed facts the court was satisfied the companys business and affairs were conducted in a manner involving misfeasance/misconduct, misleading or withheld information and unfairly prejudicial to members, and that the 2nd respondent was partly responsible; absent fraud but on grounds of gross incompetence and abdication of responsibility, a disqualification order was appropriate; having regard to mitigation for admission and cooperation, the appropriate period was five years, with costs as agreed and leave to serve the order out of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Disqualification order made against the 2nd respondent (Ong Hong Hoon) for five years

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent is disqualified from being or continuing to be a director, liquidator, receiver or manager of any corporation and from being concerned in the management of any corporation without leave of the court
  • Period of disqualification: five years