Trony case poses regulatory challenge

The allegations of financial misstatements made by Trony Solar Holdings mark yet another instance of a mainland company listed in Hong Kong being beyond the reach of the Securities and Futures Commission.

Comments

Guanyu said…
Trony case poses regulatory challenge

Enoch Yiu
12 January 2015

The allegations of financial misstatements made by Trony Solar Holdings mark yet another instance of a mainland company listed in Hong Kong being beyond the reach of the Securities and Futures Commission.

The SFC, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants declined to say if they would investigate the claims.

The solar equipment maker has voluntarily halted trading of its shares since June 2012 after receiving anonymous e-mails alleging it had cooked the books before and after its listing in October 2010.

In September 2012, Trony appointed PwC to review its accounts and the findings were disclosed last month. It said PwC found three sets of books with significantly different figures but was unable to conclude which set was true as the supporting documents were missing, data stored in company computers had been deleted and top managers had no knowledge of the matter.

“This shows the urgent need for the SFC and the stock exchange to strengthen regulation over the quality of new listings. More should be done to prevent listing candidates from using dubious financial statements to sell their shares,” said Christopher Cheung Wah-fung, the legislator for the financial services sector.

Cheung said the incident also highlighted the difficulties of cross-border investigations as under the “one country, two systems” policy, the SFC and other Hong Kong regulators had no authority to probe mainland companies and could only seek the help of the China Securities Regulatory Commission.

“The situation may get worse as the stock through train scheme has prompted many international and Hong Kong investors to buy mainland-listed shares. Yet the SFC can’t even regulate mainland companies listed here,” he said.

In December 2013, the SFC sought a court order to freeze HK$1.9 billion of the assets of decorative paper maker Qunxing Paper Holdings, alleging it had provided misleading information in its listing prospectus in 2007 and documents related to its warrants in 2011. The case is yet to be resolved.

In July 2013, the SFC applied to the court to wind up China Metal Recycling (Holdings), accusing the company of overstating its finances when applying for listing in 2009 and in its annual report for that year. That legal battle is continuing.

Liquidation professionals say it would be an uphill task to access the assets of these companies as most of them are on the mainland, out of bounds to the local regulator and liquidators.

This, say brokers, is a concern as mainland firms account for half the market capitalisation of the Hong Kong exchange.

“Ideally, it would be better for the SFC to be allowed to join the CSRC investigation as it would be more effective and would enhance investor protection,” Cheung said.

However, a source said it would be impossible for SFC staff to be allowed into mainland investigations. But he said a memorandum of understanding signed between the SFC and the CSRC in October last year would strengthen the ties between them.

Under the agreement, the two regulators will respond quickly to each other’s requests for information and join forces to crack down on malpractices in cross-border trading under the stock through train scheme. They also agreed to work together when daily surveillance and investigations are required and jointly handle investor complaints, their compensation and education.

The SFC’s executive director of enforcement, Mark Steward, has said the co-operation between the two bodies had mainly been a one-way affair. This was because hundreds of mainland firms were listed in Hong Kong, and not the other way round.

Cross-border trading programmes might change the situation, Steward said.

Popular posts from this blog

Two ex-UOBKH staff charged with lying to MAS over due diligence reports on a Catalist aspirant