The Court of First Instance has recently discussed the Court’s discretionary power in allowing private companies to be carved out from disqualification orders made against former directors of a listed company under s.214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”). The Court retains discretion in deciding whether exemptions to disqualification orders should be granted in the circumstances. We discuss the principles and key factors considered by the Court in dealing with such carve-out applications below.

In Securities and Futures Commission v Yiu Hoi Ying Charles and Others (FACV5/2018), the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) handed down a landmark decision on the innocent purpose defence under section 271(3) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The CFA ruled that the respondents “used” the price sensitive information (PSI) when they sold…

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal recently upheld that dealing in securities while withholding or not disclosing price sensitive information does not constitute insider dealing provided that the dealing was not in any part caused by the price sensitive information.

The Court of First Instance of the Hong Kong High Court ordered the Securities and Futures Commission to produce relevant documents obtained in its investigations to respondents of disqualification proceedings.