The law of investor protection in the age of currency wars

    Updated: 2013-05-23 05:31

    By Andrew Mak(HK Edition)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

    We are coming to an age where the common law on investor protection needs to be further developed.

    Abenomics seems to have solved the biggest problem of Japan in recent years. The weaker yen was reported to have accounted for almost half the GDP growth in the recent quarter. The yen has dropped 30 percent against the US dollar and against the Chinese yuan since August, and 37 percent against the euro.

    China is becoming an increasingly larger part of global trade as it continues to develop. And while Japan exports the most to China it competes directly with many other countries including the US and Europe for that business.

    These complex changes in international economic trends followed by government actions, are not necessarily known to average investors in a growing sophisticated financial and stock market. On the other hand, it may not be odd to discover that law reports of the last decade are full of unsuccessful suits by investors against their banks for negligent or unsuitable advice. It will become even more difficult in future.

    The reasons for the apparent lack of investor protection may not be that cynical. While there are possible causes of action in claiming breaches by the bank of contractual duty (in particular, through misrepresentation), duty of care, statutory duty and fiduciary duty, claims are often unsuccessful because the investor is a sophisticated investor; or is an institution rather than an individual; or has strong financial resources or of "high-net worth", and thus is in a good bargaining position.

    The situation reminds me of a recent comment by the Singapore Law Gazette of the case of Deutsche Bank v Chang Tse Wen. Chang, a Taiwanese scientist, was about to receive a considerable amount of wealth ($118 million) through selling his shares in a company he founded. His relationship manager at Deutsche Bank courted him as a prospective client and was aware that Chang had limited investment experience. After a presentation by Wan (the manager), Chang opened an advisory account with the bank and signed a Service Agreement and a Derivative Agreement. The bank also extended to him unsolicited margin financing to the tune of $35 million. The bank then sold Chang derivative products called Discounted Share Purchase Programs (DSPPs), more commonly called accumulators. An accumulator is a speculative product which commits the buyer to purchase more of certain shares if its price falls below a specified price. It allows the seller to terminate the contract if the share goes above another specified price. Within a short period of time commencing November 2007, Chang purchased 34 DSPPs. Chang learnt for the first time in March 2008 that he had exposure of $78 million and thereafter faced several margin calls. Subsequently, in November 2008, the bank exercised its contractual termination and security rights and liquidated the shares in the account, with a net amount of close to $1.8 million owing to the bank. The bank sued for this sum while Chang counterclaimed for his investment loss of $49 million.

    The Singapore Court decided in Chang's favor, holding that Deutsche Bank had breached its duty of care to Chang and that the disclaimers contained in the Service Agreement and the Derivative Agreement did not stop Chang's claim.

    The case shows an evolving law in Singapore on the subject of investor protection. But it is a case decided on its own facts and the particular contractual clauses in question. There is more in the law of investor protection in Hong Kong that needs to be resolved as one aspires towards a highly well-reasoned legal framework. We need a legal framework which is able to discern and distinguish deserving and undeserving cases, and avoid focusing on features which may not be the sufficient or appropriate litmus tests, such as whether the parties are commercial or non-commercial, sophisticated or unsophisticated and of equal or unequal bargaining power. In particular, the law needs to be able, and for the right reasons, to conclude that an investor may have a remedy notwithstanding that he had signed a contract with clauses that appear to take away his rights, even if done to a party with substantial financial means. This will transform Hong Kong into an authentic international financial center with adequate investor protection.

    The author is a Hong Kong barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Bar's Special Committee on Planning and Policy.

    (HK Edition 05/23/2013 page9)

    久久久久久无码Av成人影院 | 精品无码AV无码免费专区| 全球中文成人在线| 亚洲AV无码一区二区三区DV| 亚洲中文字幕无码一区| 国产a v无码专区亚洲av| 亚洲中文字幕久久精品无码喷水| 无码人妻黑人中文字幕| 人妻无码中文字幕免费视频蜜桃| 亚洲av福利无码无一区二区 | 色婷婷综合久久久久中文字幕| 精品无码人妻久久久久久| 亚洲AV无码一区二区三区DV| 中文字幕永久一区二区三区在线观看 | AAA级久久久精品无码片| 久久久久精品国产亚洲AV无码| 国产中文字幕在线| 亚洲无码日韩精品第一页| 色综合久久中文字幕无码| 亚洲日韩国产AV无码无码精品| 无码人妻丝袜在线视频| 最近中文字幕2019高清免费 | 中文字幕精品无码一区二区 | 日韩A无码AV一区二区三区| 成人无码免费一区二区三区| 精品国产a∨无码一区二区三区 | 播放亚洲男人永久无码天堂| 日韩国产成人无码av毛片| 无码国产福利av私拍| 少妇无码一区二区三区免费| 亚洲∧v久久久无码精品 | 国模GOGO无码人体啪啪| 无码国产精品一区二区免费式芒果| 亚洲综合无码精品一区二区三区| 久久久99精品成人片中文字幕| 国产资源网中文最新版| 区三区激情福利综合中文字幕在线一区 | 中国无码人妻丰满熟妇啪啪软件| 日本无码WWW在线视频观看| 少妇性饥渴无码A区免费| 久久久久久精品无码人妻|