China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China’s First ABS Fraudulent Issuance Case: Compensation of CNY 560 Million

Mon, 21 Aug 2023
Categories: China Legal Trends

In May 2023, the Shanghai Financial Court (SFC) concluded China’s first civil compensation case for fraudulent asset-backed securities (ABS) issuance.

The case refers to the plaintiff Postal Saving Bank of China Co., Ltd v. defendants Kunshan Meijite Dengdu Management Co., Ltd (“Meijite”), Huatai United Securities Co., Ltd (“Huatai Securities”), Shanghai Fucheng HFT Asset Management Co., Ltd (“the Manager”), China Chengxin Bong Rating Data Technology Co., Ltd (“CCXR”), and Beijing King & Wood Mallesons (“KWM”), (see Postal Saving Bank of China Co., Ltd v. Kunshan Meijite Dengdu Management Co., Ltd et al. (2020) Hu 74 Min Chu No. 1801).

On 26 July 2016, the plaintiff entered into a subscription agreement with the Manager to subscribe for a total nominal amount of CNY 967 million of the underlying securities of Meijite. KWM, CCXR, and Huatai Securities were the legal advisors, rating agencies, and financial advisors, respectively, for the securities in question.

In November 2016, the securities in question were listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Upon maturity of the securities, the plaintiff received only a partial payment of principal and interest.

Believing that the above five defendants constituted a fraudulent issuance and caused substantial losses, the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit with the SFC.

The SFC held that the underlying assets of the relevant securities and their cash flows were grossly misstated, and accordingly:

  • Meijite should compensate the plaintiff for the loss of principal and interest due to the fraudulent issuance of securities;
  • Huatai Securities should be jointly and severally liable for damages for intentionally concealing the fact of fraudulent issuance by the issuer; and
  • The Manager, CCXR, and KWM were each grossly negligent in the preparation and issuance of the false statements in the disclosure documents and were jointly and severally liable within the scope of their responsibilities.

 

 

Photo by Vardan Papikyan on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

Beyond the Memorandum: Shanghai Court Enforces Singapore Judgment by Confirming “Reciprocal Consensus” Under China’s New Framework

On January 8, 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court recognized and enforced a Singapore High Court monetary judgment in Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28. It marks the first judicial confirmation of “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore under the 2022 reciprocity criteria, based on the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance (MOG).

SPC Issues New Rules for Government Information Disclosure Cases

In May 2025, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a new judicial interpretation, replacing its 2011 predecessor to standardize adjudication of government information disclosure cases and safeguard citizens' right to know by clarifying trial standards, defendant identification, burden of proof, and preventive relief.

China's Top Court Releases Minor Protection Cases

China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released five typical cases to strengthen holistic judicial protection for minors, exemplifying the "best interests of the child" principle through integrated criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.

China Enacts Landmark Private Economy Promotion Law

China enacted its landmark first Private Economy Promotion Law, effective May 20, 2025, to guarantee fair competition, streamline market access via a unified negative list, and bolster private enterprises through financing, innovation, and service support.