Monday 15th May 2017
We emerge from hibernation to bring you this:
The Enigma Network: 50 stocks not to own
Sometimes, all you need to tell a story is a picture. (15-May-2017)
IN OTHER NEWS
Trio in court for bribery and disclosing identity of persons under ICAC probe
Leung Siu Lun, a former vice president of HSBC at its Mong Kok business centre, is accused of taking bribes for credit facilities, including 3 nights in Macau, 1 in Guangzhou, a TV games console, a cash gift and a coffee machine together worth HK$15k.
of HK$3.6m Harrow donations fraud and laundering crime proceeds
Panel’s ruling on TVB (0511) whitewash waiver and disclosure of shareholding
Promising Securities HK$3.5m
An unlicensed person was performing both sales and settlement, giving her the opportunity to misappropriate HK$8m of client assets. She was only licensed to deal for 6 months from 21-May-2009 to 22-Dec-2009. Webb-site Who's Who shows that person must be Chan Bun Yu. Promising "has taken steps to" return the misappropriated assets to all affected clients. No word on whether they have finished doing so, but it looks promising.
Appeal dismisses SFC's appeal against MMT decision
It's the SFC's 2nd loss in a month, following the CITIC case at the MMT. The MMT cases involved the same judge. The appeal centres on the meaning of "using" inside information, and whether withholding of the information was a "use" which had contributed to the artificially high price. In our view, that misses the point. It should have been enough to show, as the SFC did, that the respondents knew that the market price would likely be materially lower if the information in their possession had been disclosed. On a common sense analysis, that should constitute "using" the information when dealing. Let's hope the SFC takes this point of law to the CFA.
Listing Decision on "Company A"
This can only be Union Asia Enterprise (8173), which was suspended on 20-Mar-2017 and is now in stage 1 of delisting.
Y v Law Society of HK
HK Court of First Instance, 28-Apr-2017
This judgment begs a question: if the Law Society cannot put on a list (for members only) the name of a person with convictions involving dishonesty unless he actually applies for a job in a law firm, then law firms cannot use that list to vet applicants - and anyway, if the person's convictions are in media reports which the law firm can find on the web, then why bother with a list at all?
And much more besides...
Remember that, apart from our occasional artisan articles, you can follow Webb-site Reports via RSS, Twitter, Facebook or Google+.
Pass it on!
This free newsletter goes to over 22,000 subscribers. If you enjoy the site, then please invite a friend to find out what they are missing and subscribe!
This e-mail and small extracts of any article on the site may be freely quoted in any other publication but ONLY if attribution is given to Webb-site.com.
David M. Webb