Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of listing rules

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. JIA YUETING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1074/2021

On the agreed facts the Court was satisfied the Company’s business and affairs (including transfers to LeShi-related entities and failures of disclosure and internal control) fell within s214(1)(b),(c) and (d). The 5th Respondent was partly responsible by approving and facilitating Transactions 3, 4-1 and 4-2, failing to address auditor (EY) concerns and not exercising independent judgment. Having regard to seriousness and agreed mitigation, the Court approved the Carecraft settlement and ordered a five-year disqualification and payment of HK$4,000,000 to the Company (inclusive of interest) a…
17 Sept 2019

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KWOK WING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3392/2013

On the agreed facts the Company’s affairs were conducted with misfeasance and by withholding material information from members, and the 2nd respondent, by signing documents, attendance sheets and approving transactions without independent enquiry, was partly responsible; her conduct was serious incompetence and dereliction placing her in the middle sentencing bracket, so a disqualification order for six years and an order that she pay the SFC's costs are appropriate.
27 Mar 2015

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KWOK WING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KWOK WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3392/2013

On the admitted factual matrix the 4th respondent demonstrably failed to exercise independent judgment, was lacking in diligence and competence, permitted nondisclosure of price‑sensitive information and participated in misleading announcements; that conduct falls within s214(1)(b) and (c) of the SFO and justifies a disqualification order under s214(2)(d) for six years, with costs payable to the Commission.
25 Apr 2012

LUCK CONTINENT LTD v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE AND OTHERS

Citation

LUCK CONTINENT LTD v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP702/2010

The court held that CYF was obliged under the Listing Rules to ensure its articles conformed to Appendix 3 para 4(3); Bermuda law did not 'provide otherwise' because it merely permitted companies to set the voting threshold but did not require a higher threshold; the failure of shareholders to pass the amendment resulted in the company remaining in breach and that company-level inaction was unfairly prejudicial under s.168A because it risked prolonging suspension of trading and prejudiced shareholders. Accordingly the court ordered amendment of Bye-law 86(4) to substitute 'ordinary' for 'spec…
9 Apr 2010

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YEUNG KUI WONG AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YEUNG KUI WONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1742/2009

On the agreed facts the court was satisfied that, during the relevant period, the business or affairs of the Company were conducted in a manner involving misfeasance or misconduct and/or resulting in members not being given information they might reasonably expect within s.214(1)(b) and (c). The 3rd and 4th Respondents failed persistently to ensure compliance with Listing Rules including non-disclosure of multiple price-sensitive events and connected-party financial assistance; accordingly disqualification under s.214(2)(d) was appropriate and, taking into account guidance on tariff brackets…
13 Oct 2009

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2524/2006

The SFC proved that the 1st and 3rd respondents were responsible, collectively or individually, for the Company’s affairs being conducted with misfeasance and other misconduct: they allowed a shadow controller to control finances, approved or signed misleading announcements and back‑dated minutes, failed to exercise required skill and care, and permitted significant unsecured transfers to related parties; accordingly disqualification orders (7 years for 1st respondent, 6 years for 3rd respondent) covering all corporations were justified to protect the public and deter misconduct.
27 Nov 2008

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2524/2006

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.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. JIA YUETING AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KWOK WING AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KWOK WING AND OTHERS

LUCK CONTINENT LTD v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YEUNG KUI WONG AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. FUNG CHIU AND OTHERS