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

SPC Unveils 2023 IP Protection Report

In April 2024, China's Supreme People's Court(SPC) released its 2023 report on intellectual property protection, highlighting a 3.41% increase in accepted cases, and a 117% rise in punitive damages awarded.

SPC Publishes Typical Cases on Public Security Crimes

In April 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released five typical cases illustrating crimes against public security, emphasizing clarifications on trial criteria and sentencing principles, featuring a case involving serious injuries from objects thrown off a high-rise building.

Beijing Court Upholds Workers' Right to Offline Rest

The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court ruled that workers are entitled to overtime pay for “invisible overtime work” conducted via social media outside of working hours, protecting their right to “offline rest”.

China Revises State Secrets Protection Law

China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress, revised the State Secrets Protection Law to enhance information classification, secrecy in technological innovation, and precise protection of state secrets, effective May 1, 2024.