|
HCMP 1831/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1831 OF 2010
____________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Sunlink International Holdings Limited (in provisional liquidation)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Section 214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, Cap 571
|
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION |
Petitioner |
|
and
|
| |
WONG SHU WING |
1st Respondent |
| |
LEE CHAK TO |
2nd Respondent |
| ____________ |
| Before: Hon Harris J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 20 March 2013 |
| Date of Decision: 20 March 2013 |
______________
D E C I S I O N
______________
1.The Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) seeks disqualification order under s 214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”) against the Respondents who were a director and the company secretary of the Company respectively, which is listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, Sunlink International Holdings Limited.
2.The 1st and 2nd Respondents have agreed to the disposal of the proceedings against them by way of the summary procedures sanctioned in Re Carecraft Construction Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172 as clarified by the English Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Trade & Industry v Rogers [1996] 1 WLR 1569 and adopted by this court in respect of proceedings under s 214 of the Ordinance in Securities and Futures Commission v Yick Chong San [2007] 4 HKLR 46; Securities and Futures Commission v Shum Ka Sang Charlie and Shen Yi, HCMP 1014/2008, unreported, 22 May 2009; and Securities and Futures Commission v Fung Chiu [2009] 2 HKC 19 and most recently in my judgment in Securities and Futures Commission v Yeung Kui Wong and 5 Others HCMP 1742/2009, unreported judgment, 9 April 2010.
3.The carecraft procedure involves the submission by the parties to the court of an agreed statement of facts on which the court is invited to assess what order should be made; in the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents the proposed period of disqualification has been agreed as 5 years and 3.5 years respectively. In the case of the costs of the SFC, the 1st Respondent has agreed to contribute HK$465,000, the 2nd respondent has agreed to contribute HK$311,000.
4.The parties accept that in determining what order to make the court is not bound by the agreement the parties have reached, the court must be satisfied that the business affairs of the Company have been conducted in the manner described in s 214(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Ordinance and decide on the scope and duration of any order: Re Riverhill Holdings Limited [2007] 4 HKLRD 46. In practice the court is likely to be guided by the agreement that the regulator, the SFC, will reach concerning the sanction to be imposed.
5.The SFC and the Respondents have agreed in this case statements of fact, and that these statements of facts are appended to this Decision. It is not, therefore, necessary for me to recite the relevant facts which are apparent from the appendices.
6.In paragraphs 7 to 11 of my judgment in Securities and Futures Commission v Yeung Kui Wong, I set out the consideration that the court takes into account in assessing disqualification generally. It is not necessary for me to repeat those principles here.
7.Mr Anderson Chow SC who appeared for the SFC emphasised the following matters in paragraphs 15, 17 and 21 of his skeleton argument:
“15. In summary, the complaints of the SFC against the R1 and R2 are that:-
(1) the Company failed to disclose to its members, the general investing public and the SEHK various “Events” set out in paragraphs 31 to 53 of “Part A (Agreed Facts) – 1st Respondent” / “Part A (Agreed Facts) – 2nd Respondent” which clearly demonstrated that the Company was in substantial financial difficulties;
(2) those Events constituted material and/or price sensitive information which ought to have been disclosed, pursuant to Rules 13.09, 13.10 and 13.19 of the Listing Rules;
(3) R1 and R2 failed to manage the Company with the necessary degree of skill, care, diligence and competence as is reasonably expected of persons of their knowledge and experience and holding their offices and functions within the Company;
(4) by reason of the aforesaid matters, the business and affairs of the Company were conducted in a manner:-
(a) involving misfeasance or misconduct towards the Company, its members or part of its members;
(b) resulting in its members or part of its members not having been given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect; and
(c) unfairly prejudicial to its members or any part of its members;
(5) R1 and R2 were wholly or partly responsible for the business or affairs of the Company having been so conducted.
…..
17. On the basis of the agreed facts, there can be little doubt that the business and affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner (i) involving misfeasance or misconduct towards the Company, its members or part of its members, (ii) resulting in its members or part of its members not having been given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect; and (iii) unfairly prejudicial to its members or any part of its members, as described in s 214(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the SFO. That this is so is accepted by both R1 and R2.
…..
21. In determining the appropriate scope and period of disqualification against R1 and R2, the following features are emphasised:-
(1) The failure to make disclosure of the Company’s serious financial difficulties related not to an isolated matter but a series of matters occurring within a short period of time (October to December 2008).
(2) The failure to make timely disclosure of such matters, which plainly were material and/or price sensitive information, resulted in the shareholders not being given any opportunity to dispose of their shares in good time. Trading in the shares of the Company was suspended for over 3 years (from 2 December 2008 to 28 February 2012).
(3) The Company’s financial difficulties were not disclosed even in a public announcement regarding a proposed placement of shares dated 26 November 2008.”
8.I accept that these are the major concerns in respect of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ conduct and they put the present case at the upper and middle end of the minimum bracket of 2 to 5 years for the cases which are relatively but not extremely serious.
9.I make an order in the following terms in respect of the 1st and 2nd Respondents:
(1) The 1st Respondent shall not, for a period of 5 years, without leave of the Court:
(i) be, or continue to be, a director, liquidator, or receiver or manager of the property or business of any listed corporation in Hong Kong, including the Company, or any subsidiaries and affiliates of such corporation; or
(ii) in any way directly or indirectly be concerned, or take part, in the management of any listed corporation in Hong Kong, including the Company, or any subsidiaries and affiliates of such corporation.
(2) The 2nd Respondent shall not, for a period of 3.5 years, without leave of the Court:
(i) be, or continue to be, a director, liquidator, or receiver or manager of the property or business of any listed corporation in Hong Kong, including the Company, or any subsidiaries and affiliates of such corporation; or
(ii) in any way directly or indirectly be concerned, or take part, in the management of any listed corporation in Hong Kong, including the Company, or any subsidiaries and affiliates of such corporation.
in paragraphs 1 and 2 above the following terms shall have the meaning hereinafter assigned to them
(1) “company” means a company as defined in section 2(1) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 32. The expression “company” in the definitions of subsidiary and affiliate below shall be read as including a corporation;
(2) “corporation” means a company or other body corporate incorporated either in Hong Kong or elsewhere;
(3) “subsidiary” means, with respect to its holding company, a company –
(a) the composition of the board of directors of which is directly or indirectly controlled by the holding company; or
(b) more than half of the issued share capital of which is directly or indirectly controlled by the holding company; or
(c) which is a subsidiary of a company which is subsidiary of the holding company; or
(d) which is accounted for and consolidated in the holding company’s consolidated financial statements;
(4) “holding company” in relation to a company shall be read as a reference to a company of which the last‑mentioned company is a subsidiary;
(5) “affiliate” in respect of a company means any subsidiaries or holding companies of such company or any subsidiaries of any of the holding companies of such company.
(3) The period of disqualification in each instance shall commence 21 days from the date hereof;
(4) The 1st Respondent shall pay a contribution to the Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings agreed at HK$465,000;
(5) The 2nd Respondent shall pay a contribution to the Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings agreed at HK$311,000, which sum shall be payable by instalments in the manner as set out in the Schedule attached hereto;
(6) In the event of default on the part of the 2nd Respondent in payment of any of the said instalments or any part thereof on the due dates, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to sign final judgment against the 2nd Respondent forthwith upon such default for the whole of the outstanding balance of the agreed sum.
| |
(Jonathan Harris) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Anderson Chow SC, instructed by Securities and Futures Commission, the petitioner
Mr Victor Dawes, instructed by Robertsons, for the 1st respondent
The 2nd respondent appeared in person
PART A (AGREED FACTS) – 1ST RESPONDENT
The Company
1 The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands under the Companies Law as an exempted company on 5 July 2002. Its shares (Stock Code: 2336) were listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “SEHK”) on 3 March 2003 and remained so listed as at the date of the Petition.
2 The registered office of the Company is situate at Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive, P.O. Box 2681GT, Grand Cayman KY1-1111, Cayman Islands, British West Indies. Its principal place of business is now situate at Suite 1502, 15th Floor, Great Eagle Centre, 23 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong.
3 As stated in its Final Results Announcement for the year ended 31 December 2008 published on 31 March 2010, the Company has an authorized share capital of HK$300,000,000 divided into 3,000,000,000 shares of HK$0.10 each, and 1,864,780,000 issued shares.
4 The Company and its subsidiaries will hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Group”.
The former management of the Company and its business
5 As stated in the Company’s Prospectus issued in connection with its listing on the Main Board of the SEHK dated 18 February 2003:-
(1) The Group was an established distributor of semiconductors for consumer electronic and telecommunication products, computers and peripheral devices for customers in Hong Kong and the PRC. In addition to its semiconductors distribution business, the Group also engaged in the development and provision of electronic turnkey device solutions for customers in Hong Kong and the PRC.
(2) The 1st Respondent was an Executive Director and the Chairman of the Company responsible for the Group’s overall strategic planning and formulation of corporate policies, as well as overseeing the sales and marketing activities of the Group. The 1st Respondent had about 20 years of experience in the sales and marketing of semiconductors and electronic components.
(3) The 2nd Respondent was the financial controller of the Group and also the Company Secretary of the Company. He joined the Group in May 2002 to be responsible for the Group’s financial and tax reporting with a view to streamline the corporate structure of the Group. The 2nd Respondent mainly reported to the 1st Respondent. Prior to joining the Group, the 2nd Respondent gained over 9 years of experience in auditing, accounting and financial management. He obtained a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and was a member of The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and The Hong Kong Society of Accountants.
6 In the Company’s Annual Report 07 published on 28 April 2008, it was stated, inter alia, that:-
(1) The Company acted as an investment holding company. The principal activities of its subsidiaries included manufacturing and trading of computer components, trading of electronic products and parts, provision of technology solutions, and design and production of electronic parts.
(2) The 1st Respondent was an Executive Director and Chairman of the Company, and the 2nd Respondent was the Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of the Company.
(3) The 1st Respondent was responsible for formulating the Group’s overall corporate strategies and business development, and also for convening and chairing Board meetings. The 1st Respondent was the founder of the Group and had over 20 years of experience in the electronic and wireless communication industries.
(4) The 2nd Respondent was responsible for the Group’s financial and tax reporting.
(5) The Company had an authorized share capital of HK$300,000,000 divided into 3,000,000,000 shares of HK$0.10 each, and an issued share capital of 1,864,680,000 shares.
(6) The 1st Respondent had interest in 32.63% of the issued share capital of the Company, of which 30.63% was held through a BVI company called Best Eagle International Limited which was beneficially owned by the 1st Respondent.
7 According to a Shareholding Disclosure Form 3A dated 11 December 2008, the 1st Respondent’s interest in the Company had increased to 33.38% of its issued share capital.
The Company’s current position
8 At all material times up to 2 December 2008, the Company had four Executive Directors, namely, (i) the 1st Respondent, (ii) Choi Tat Kai, (iii) Han Yang, and (iv) Liu Shun Keung, and three Independent Non-Executive Directors, namely, (i) Yeung Ming Tai, (ii) Professor Sun Hanxu, and (iii) Chan Kwok Ming Daniel.
9 On 1 December 2008, a winding up petition was presented against the Company by a trade creditor, Gold Star International Holdings Limited (“Gold Star”).
10 At the request of the Company, trading in its shares was suspended with effect from 9:30 a.m. on 2 December 2008.
11 On 2 December 2008, one of the Executive Directors of the Company (namely, Choi Tat Kai) resigned.
12 On 17 December 2008, two other Executive Directors (namely, Han Yang and Liu Shun Keung) and all three Independent Non-Executive Directors of the Company resigned.
13 On 19 December 2008, the 2nd Respondent resigned as Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of the Company.
14 On 24 December 2008, the High Court of the HKSAR appointed Messrs. Stephen Liu Yiu Keung and David Yen Ching Wai, both of Ernst & Young Transactions Limited, to act jointly and severally as provisional liquidators of the Company.
15 On 6 January 2009, the Company published an announcement regarding the aforesaid winding up petition and appointment of provisional liquidators.
16 On 12 October 2009, three Independent Non-Executive Directors were appointed to the Board of Directors of the Company, namely, Tso Shiu Kei Vincent, Young Meng Cheung Andrew and Poon Ka Lee Barry.
17 On 1 March 2010, the 1st Respondent resigned as Executive Director of the Company.
18 On 12 May 2010, the SEHK placed the Company in the third delisting stage. The SEHK intended to cancel the listing of the Company after the six-month period (i.e. 11 November 2010) if the Company did not provide a viable resumption proposal. As at the date hereof, the Company had not yet been delisted.
19 The Company and some of its subsidiaries proposed certain restructuring, and a resumption proposal was submitted to the SEHK. The details of the proposed restructuring and resumption proposal are not material to the Petitioner’s complaints in the present Petition.
20 On 2 February 2012, the High Court of the HKSAR sanctioned the restructuring of the Company which became effective on 23 February 2012. On 24 February 2012, the High Court of the HKSAR discharged the Company’s provisional liquidators and dismissed the winding up petition presented by Gold Star International Holdings Limited on 1 December 2008.
21 The appointments of two executive Directors, namely Mr. Suen Cho Hung, Paul and Mr. Sue Ka Lok, and three independent non-executive Directors, namely Mr. Sun Ka Ziang, Henry, Mr. Chiang Bun and Ms. Wong Wai Yin, Viola, became effective on 23 February 2012.
22 Trading in the Company’s shares resumed on 28 February 2012.
The financial position of the Company as at 31 December 2007, 30 June 2008 and 31 December 2008
23 According to the Company’s Annual Report 07 published on 28 April 2008, as at 31 December 2007:-
(1) The Group had total assets of approximately HK$568.5 million, and a net equity of HK$305.817 million.
(2) The Group had current assets of HK$553.332 million, current liabilities of HK$262.479 million, and net current assets of HK$290.853 million.
(3) The Group had bank balances and cash of approximately HK$100.8 million. The total facilities granted to the Group by its bankers amounted to approximately HK$221.0 million.
(4) The turnover of the Group grew 62.8% to HK$1,314.9 million, the net profit of the Group increased 297.2% to HK$100.6 million, and the earning per share rose 183.4% to HK cents 5.81.
24 According to the Company’s Interim Results for the six months ended 30 June 2008 released on 18 September 2008:-
(1) The Group had total assets of approximately HK$732.163 million, and a net equity of HK$401.044 million.
(2) The Group had current assets of HK$701.675 million, current liabilities of HK$329.501 million, and net current assets of HK$372.174 million.
(3) The Group had bank balances and cash of approximately HK$70.131 million. The total facilities granted to the Group by its bankers amounted to approximately HK$223.3 million.
(4) For the six months up to 30 June 2008, the turnover of the Group increased approximately 77.5% to HK$857.8 million, the net profit of the Group increased by approximately 2.5 times to HK$94.6 million, and the earning per share rose to HK cents 5.07.
25 However, according to the Company’s Final Results Announcement for the year ended 31 December 2008 published on 31 March 2010:-
(1) The Group had total assets of HK$724,000 only, and net liabilities of HK$234.058 million.
(2) The Group had current assets of HK$724,000, current liabilities of HK$234.782 million, and net current liabilities of HK$234.058 million.
(3) The Group had bank balances and cash of HK$724,000.
(4) The turnover of the Group dropped to HK$857.810 million, the net loss for the year of the Group was HK$534.851 million, and the loss per share was HK cents 28.68. This loss included (i) an amount of HK$272.032 million in respect of loss on deconsolidation of certain subsidiaries (“Deconsolidated Subsidiaries”), (ii) an amount of HK$14.025 million in respect of impairment on investment costs in the Deconsolidated Subsidiaries, and (iii) an amount of HK$139.819 million in respect of impairment on amounts due from the Deconsolidated Subsidiaries.
26 It is clear that during the second half of 2008, the financial position of the Company had worsened dramatically, from being a prosperous and profitable company with substantial assets to an insolvent company with few assets and huge liabilities. Nevertheless, the Company and its officers, including the 1st and 2nd Respondents, failed to disclose to its members and the general investing public the Company’s rapidly deteriorating financial conditions prior to the public announcement on 6 January 2009 of the aforesaid winding up petition and appointment of provisional liquidators, in breach of the relevant disclosure obligations under the Listing Rules of the SEHK (the “Listing Rules”), full particulars whereof will be set out below.
The Company’s deteriorating financial condition in the second half of 2008
27 In the Company’s Interim Results for the six months ended 30 June 2008 released on 18 September 2008, it was stated that the Group delivered the best interim profit since listing on the SEHK in 2003. The share price of the Company closed at HK$0.425 on 19 September 2008, representing an 11.8% increase of the closing price on the previous day. Its share price increased further to HK$0.48 on 24 September 2008.
28 However, since the Company’s share price reached its peak at HK$0.48 on 24 September 2008, it had fallen to close at HK$0.118 on 23 October 2008, representing an accumulated decrease of 75%, whereas the Hang Seng Index had dropped from 18,961 to 13,760 (i.e. by 27%) over the same period. Also, the closing price of HK$0.118 represented a significant 13% drop from the closing price of HK$0.136 on the previous day.
29 On 23 October 2008, upon the request of the SEHK, the Company published an announcement stating that it had noted the recent decrease in the price of its shares, but was not aware of any reasons for such change or any matter discloseable under the general obligation imposed by Rule 13.09 of the Listing Rules.
30 In truth and in fact, the Company was experiencing serious financial difficulties starting from around October 2008, details of which are set out below.
(i) Failure to repay bank debts when due
31 In October 2008, there were already discussions between the Company and 7 bank creditors, namely, Hang Seng Bank, DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd, Bank of Communications Co Ltd, Wing Hang Bank, Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd, Citic Ka Wah Bank and Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd (the “Bank Group”) concerning the Group’s financial position and outlook, following the Group’s failure to repay amounts due on banking facilities.
32 Hang Seng Bank:
(1) By written demands dated 31 October 2008, Hang Seng Bank demanded the Company and various subsidiaries of the Company for repayment of approximately HK$42.9 million and US$0.8 million due to the bank.
(2) The above demands were followed by Statutory Demands dated 11 November 2008 issued by Messrs. Li, Kwok & Law on behalf of Hang Seng Bank on the Company and its subsidiaries, followed by further demand letters dated 28 November 2008.
33 Bank of Communications Co Ltd:
By written demands dated 10 November 2008 issued by Deacons on behalf of Bank of Communications Co Ltd, the Company and its subsidiaries were demanded to repay approximately HK$29.3 million and US$0.16 million due to the bank.
34 Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited:
By written demands dated 10 and 12 November 2008 respectively, Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd demanded the Company’s subsidiary (Sunwave Development Limited) to repay overdue indebtedness of approximately HK$1.125 million and HK$3.717 million. By a further written demand dated 17 November 2008, Messrs. Tsang, Chan & Wong on behalf of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd demanded the Company to repay approximately HK$14.9 million due to the bank.
35 Wing Hang Bank:
By written demands dated 17 November 2008, Wing Hang Bank demanded the Company and various subsidiaries of the Company for repayment of approximately HK$25.4 million and US$0.2 million due to the bank.
36 DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd:
By written demands dated 21 November 2008, DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd demanded the Company’s subsidiaries for repayment of approximately HK$31.38 million, US$37,230, HK$670,000 and CNY1.3 million due to the bank.
37 Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd:
By written demands dated 28 November 2008, Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd demanded the Company’s subsidiaries for repayment of over HK$22.32 million and US$0.6 million due to the bank.
38 The Company and its subsidiaries failed to meet or satisfy the aforesaid demands made by its bank creditors.
(ii) Failure to repay trade debts due to Gold Star
39 Since October 2008, Gold Star, a supplier to the Group, had been chasing the Group to repay a trade debt of HK$8.6 million under two outstanding invoices dated 6 June 2008 and 3 July 2008 respectively. Demand letters were sent on 21 October 2008 and 28 October 2008 threatening legal proceedings unless payment was made within 7 days. Eventually, a Statutory Demand dated 4 November 2008 was served on the Company stating that winding-up proceedings would be commenced within 21 days unless full payment was made in the meantime.
40 As no payment was made by the Company to Gold Star, on 1 December 2008 a winding up petition was presented against the Company. At the adjourned hearing of the petition on 25 January 2010, this Honourable Court ordered the hearing of the petition to be further adjourned to 17 May 2010. According to an announcement by the Company dated 26 May 2010, by order dated 11 May 2010, this Honourable Court further adjourned the hearing of the Petition to 1 November 2010.
(iii) Appointment of Ernst & Young to conduct Limited Financial Review and assist in the preparation of Debts Restructuring Proposal
41 On 21 November 2008, at the request of Wing Hang Bank, the Company appointed Ernst & Young (“EY”) to conduct a Limited Financial Review and assist in the preparation of a Debts Restructuring Proposal of the Company. The appointment letter was signed by the 1st Respondent on behalf of the Company.
42 Under the said appointment, the scope of services to be provided by EY to the Company in respect of the Limited Financial Review included the following:-
“(i) Meeting with the directors and senior management of the Company (“the Management”) to understand the structure, activities, operation and other relevant issues of the Listed Co.;
(ii) Reviewing the currently available information including the Company’s latest audited financial statements, its unaudited management accounts as at 31 October 2008 (or the latest available date) reflecting detailed information on the assets and liabilities.
(iii) Analyse the bank indebtedness due by the Group as at the latest practicable date;
(iv) Reviewing and discussing with the Management the Company’s monthly profit & loss and cash flow forecasts for the next 12 months (“Forecasts”) and the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions used in preparing the forecasts;
(v) Preparing a report on the above issues (“the Report”) for presentation to you and the bank creditors.”
43 The following is revealed from the Limited Financial Review Report prepared by EY dated 10 December 2008:-
(1) As stated in the management accounts, as at 30 June 2008, the total assets of the Group amounted to approximately HK$702 million, with the largest asset being “debtors, deposits and prepayment” amounting to HK$528 million. However, the accounts receivables turnover was low due to technical defects in the Company’s latest products, in consequence of which the customers had refused to settle their purchases until the problems were rectified.
(2) The Group was currently unable to meet its principal and interest repayments as and when they fell due. The total principals and interests in arrears amounted to approximately HK$205 million as at 31 October 2008.
(3) The Group relied heavily on their trade receivables to produce cash flow to settle the principal and interest payments to bank creditors. However, the Group was facing a cash flow problem because most of the trade debts were pending collection while the banks were tightening up their credit facilities.
(4) In the Estimated Realisable Value of Assets and Liabilities (Liquidation Analysis), it was stated that, of the HK$732 million of total assets (as at 30 June 2008) the estimated realisable value would only be HK$45 million, and there would be a total deficiency of about HK$483 million.
(iv) The first all bank creditors meetings on 26 November 2008
44 On 26 November 2008, the first all bank creditors meeting was held at the invitation of the Company. Present at the meeting were the 1st and 2nd Respondents, representatives of EY and representatives of the Bank Group (save and except for Hang Seng Bank and DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd).
45 At the first all bank creditors meeting:-
(1) Stephen Liu of EY reviewed the Company’s current financial status as set out in an “Information Memorandum” and “Summary of Bank Loans as at 31 October 2008”.
(2) The Information Memorandum indicated that the Company had
(a) total debts of $333.2 million (comprising HK$204.9 million of debts to bank creditors, HK$89.6 million of debts to trade creditors, and HK$38.7 million debts to the Revenue), and
(b) total assets of HK$731.12 million, the bulk of which (HK$627.66 million) was made up of (i) inventory (HK$99.48 million) and (ii) debtors, deposits and prepayments (HK$528.18 million).
(3) The 1st and 2nd Respondents explained that the financial difficulties of the Company were attributable to-
(a) technical breakdown of its products causing huge damage to the Company, in particular affecting its relationship with strategic partners such as China Mobile, as well as its debtors and suppliers;
(b) misjudgement of the current situation; and
(c) miscommunication with bank creditors.
(4) The 1st Respondent further mentioned that a placing was being arranged through Optima Capital with a view to raise about HK$36 million, of which one third of the funds (about HK$12 million) would be used to repay the bank creditors and the remaining two thirds of the funds (about HK$24 million) would be used as working capital.
(v) The attempted placing of new shares
46 On 26 November 2008, the Company made a public announcement regarding a proposed placing of new shares.
47 In the announcement, it was stated, inter alia, that:-
(1) The Company and Taiwan Securities (Hong Kong) Company Limited (“Placing Agent”) had entered into a Placing Agreement dated 25 November 2008, pursuant to which the Company had conditionally agreed to place, through the Placing Agent on a best efforts basis, up to 360,000,000 Placing Shares at the Placing Price of HK$0.1 per Share.
(2) The maximum number of 360,000,000 Placing Shares represented approximately 19.31% of the existing issued share capital of the Company and approximately 16.18% of the entire issued share capital of the Company as enlarged by the Placing.
(3) The gross proceeds from the Placing would be HK$36,000,000. The net proceeds from the Placing would amount to approximately HK$34,900,000 and was intended to be used for general working capital of the Company and reducing the bank borrowings of the Group.
48 In a section of the said announcement under the heading “Reasons for the Placing and Use of Proceeds”, it was stated that:-
“The Directors consider that the Placing will strengthen the financial position of the Group and provide an opportunity to raise further capital for the Group. The Directors further consider that it would be a prudent approach for the Company to reduce its reliance on debt financing by capital to be raised from equity financing, given the current market condition and the cost associated with the debt financing. Accordingly, the Directors are of the view that the Placing is fair and reasonable and in the interests of the Company and its Shareholders as a whole”.
49 There was no mention whatsoever in the said announcement about the dire financial condition of the Company at that time, including its failure to pay substantial debts due to banks and suppliers and wages to workers. There was no mention in the announcement of the statutory demands that had been served on the Company. Also, there was no mention of the fact that EY had been appointed to conduct a Limited Financial Review and assist in the preparation of a Debts Restructuring Proposal of the Company.
50 The proposed placing of new shares did not come to fruition eventually.
(vi) The second all bank creditors meetings on 10 December 2008
51 On 10 December 2008, the second all bank creditors meeting was held. Present at the meeting were the 1st and 2nd Respondents, representatives of EY and representatives of the Bank Group.
52 At the second all bank creditors meeting:-
(1) Stephen Liu, in addition to highlighting various aspects of the Limited Financial Review Report, stated that the Company had relocated all its books and records to its PRC office about one month ago, which apparently was in breach of the Companies Ordinance.
(2) The 1st Respondent stated that the outstanding wages owing to the PRC workers were approximately HK$2 million in early November 2008. However, the outstanding amount had increased to about HK$3.6 million as at the date of the meeting. Since the Company was unable to pay the outstanding wages, the PRC workers were on strike and the operation of the Shenzhen office had come to a halt.
(3) The 2nd Respondent claimed that the books and records of the Company and its subsidiaries had been moved to the Shenzhen office because of taxation reasons and business expansion, and they were being shifted back to the Hong Kong office but the progress was very slow due to the workers’ strike at the Shenzhen office.
53 In what follows, the aforesaid (i) failure to pay bank debts when due and demands or statutory demands issued by or on behalf of the bank creditors for repayment of the debts, (ii) failure to pay trade debts due to Gold Star and the statutory demand issued by Gold Star, (iii) appointment of EY to conduct a Limited Financial Review and assist in the preparation of Debts Restructuring Proposal, (iv) dire financial condition of the Group as revealed in the Limited Financial Review Report, (v) first and second all bank creditors meetings, and (vi) failure to pay wages to PRC workers since early November 2008, will collectively be referred to as the “Events”.
Relevant Listing Rules
54 The following Listing Rules are relevant:-
Rule 3.08(f)
“The board of directors of a listed issuer is collectively responsible for the management and operations of the listed issuer. The Exchange expects the directors, both collectively and individually, to fulfil fiduciary duties and duties of skill, care and diligence to a standard at least commensurate with the standard established by Hong Kong law. This means that every director must, in the performance of his duties as a director … apply such degree of skill, care and diligence as may reasonably be expected of a person of his knowledge and experience and holding his office within the listed issuer.”
Rule 13.04
“The directors of an issuer are collectively and individually responsible for ensuring the issuer’s full compliance with the Exchange Listing Rules.”
Rule 13.09(1)
“Generally and apart from compliance with all the specific requirements in this Chapter, an issuer shall keep the Exchange, members of the issuer and other holders of its listed securities informed as soon as reasonably practicable of any information relating to the group (including information on any major new developments in the group’s sphere of activity which is not public knowledge) which:-
(a) is necessary to enable them and the public to appraise the position of the group; or
(b) is necessary to avoid the establishment of a false market in its securities; or
(c) might be reasonably expected materially to affect market activity in and the price of its securities.”
Notes 4 and 11 to Rule 13.09(1)
“4. The question of timing of the release of an announcement to the market is crucial, having regard to its possible effect on the market price of the issuer’s listed securities. The overriding principle is that information which is expected to be price-sensitive should be announced immediately it is the subject of a decision. Failure to follow this principle may result in the Exchange imposing a temporary suspension of dealings.
11. The issuer must notify the Exchange, members of the issuer and other holders of its listed securities without delay where:-
…
(ii) to the knowledge of the directors there is such a change in the issuer’s financial condition or in the performance of its business or in the issuer’s expectation of its performance that knowledge of the change is likely to lead to substantial movement in the price of its listed securities;
…
It is the responsibility of the directors of the issuer to determine what information is material in the context of the issuer’s business, operations and financial performance. The materiality of information varies from one issuer to another according to the size of its financial performance, assets and capitalisation, the nature of its operation and other factors. An event that is ‘significant’ or ‘major’ in the context of a smaller issuer’s business and affairs is often not material to a large issuer. The directors of the issuer are in the best position to determine materiality. The Exchange recognises that decisions on disclosure require careful subjective judgments, and encourages issuers to consult the Exchange when in doubt as to whether disclosure should be made.”
Rule 13.10
“An issuer shall respond promptly to any enquiries made of the issuer by the Exchange concerning unusual movements in the price or trading volume of its listed securities or any other matters by giving such relevant information as is available to the issuer or, if appropriate, by issuing an announcement in accordance with rule 2.07C containing a statement to the effect that the issuer is not aware of any matter or development that is or may be relevant to the unusual price movement or trading volume of its listed securities and shall also respond promptly to any other enquiries made of the issuer by the Exchange.”
Note 1 to Rule 13.10
“If the enquiry relates to unusual movements in the price or trading volume of securities and the directors of the issuer are aware of any matter that might have relevance to such movements, an announcement clarifying the situation should be issued…”
Rule 13.12
“The issues set out in rules 13.13 to 13.19 should be viewed on a group basis, including those arising either from a direct relationship or indirectly through subsidiaries and affiliated companies.”
Rule 13.19
“A general disclosure obligation will arise when there is a breach of the terms of loan agreements by the issuer, for loans that are significant to the operations of the issuer, such that the lenders may demand immediate repayment of the loans and where the lenders have not issued a waiver in respect of the breach.”
Rule 13.47
“An issuer’s annual report must comply with the provisions set out in Appendix 16 in relation to annual reports. The issuer’s summary financial report must comply with the provisions set out in the Companies (Summary Financial Reports of Listed Companies) Regulation.
Note: Issuers’ attention is drawn to paragraphs 6 to 35 and 50 inclusive of Appendix 16.”
Paragraph 12 of Appendix 16
“A listed issuer should provide brief biographical details of its directors and senior managers. Such details will include name, age, positions held with the listed issuer and other members of the listed issuer’s group, length of service with the issuer and the group and such other information (which may include business experience) of which shareholders should be aware, pertaining to the ability or integrity of such persons. Where any of the directors or senior managers are related, having with any other director or senior manager any one of the relationships set out below, that fact should be stated. The relationships are spouse; any person cohabiting with the director or senior manager as a spouse; and any relative meaning a child or step-child regardless of age, a parent or step-parent, a brother, sister, step-brother or step-sister, a mother-in-law, a father-in law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law. Where any director of the listed issuer is a director or employee of a company which has an interest in the shares and underlying shares of the listed issuer which would fall to be disclosed to the listed issuer under the provisions of Divisions 2 and 3 of Part XV of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, that fact shall be stated.
12.1 It is the responsibility of the directors of the listed issuer to determine which individual or individuals constitute senior management. Senior management may include directors of subsidiaries; heads of divisions, departments or other operating units within the group as, in the opinion of the listed issuer’s directors, is appropriate.
12.2 In the case of a PRC issuer, references to directors and senior managers in this paragraph shall also mean and include supervisors.”
Breach of disclosure obligations
55 The Company failed to disclose the Events or any of them to its members, the general investing public and the SEHK, in breach of the Listing Rules.
(1) Rule 13.09
The Events constituted material and/or price sensitive information in that they clearly demonstrated that the Company was in very serious financial difficulties. The Company ought to have disclosed the Events to its members, the general investing public and the SEHK, but failed to do so. At no time prior to the announcement on 6 January 2009 of the winding up petition presented by Gold Star and the appointment of provisional liquidators were the members of the Company and the general investing public informed that the Company was in serious financial difficulties.
(2) Rule 13.10
The Company was aware of its serious financial difficulties and ought to have responded truthfully to the SEHK when enquiry was made by the SEHK concerning the unusual movement in the share price of the Company. Instead, the Company made a standard negative announcement on 23 October 2008 stating that it was not aware of any reasons for the unusual price movement (13% drop from the closing price HK$0.136 on the previous day) or any matter discloseable under the general obligation imposed by Rule 13.09 of the Listing Rules.
(3) Rule 13.19
The bank loans mentioned in paragraphs 31 to 37 above were significant to the operations of the Company. The Company ought to have disclosed to its members, the general investing public and the SEHK its failure to repay the bank debts when due as well as the demands or statutory demands issued by or on behalf of the bank creditors for repayment of the debts, but failed to do so.
55A. At paragraph 19 of his Affirmation dated 31 May 2011, the 1st Respondent has described Mr. Cheung Pin Kin’s senior role and his responsibilities in the Company. In breach of Rule 13.47 and paragraph 12 of Appendix 16 to the Listing Rules, such information was not disclosed in the Annual Report 2007.
56 The Board of Directors of the Company were also in breach of Rules 3.08(f) and 13.04 of the Listing Rules in failing persistently to ensure compliance with the Listing Rules by the Company.
Liability of the 1st Respondent under sections 214 of the Ordinance
57 By reason of the matters aforesaid, the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner:-
(1) involving misfeasance or other misconduct towards the Company, its members or part of its members;
(2) resulting in its members or part of its members not having been given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect; and/or
(3) unfairly prejudicial to its members or part of its members.
58 The 1st Respondent, as the Chairman and an Executive Director of the Company at all material times, was wholly or partly responsible for the business or affairs of the Company having been so conducted as aforesaid.
Dated this 6th day of February 2013
| _______________________ |
____________________________ |
| Wong Shu Wing |
Securities and Futures Commission |
| 1st Respondent |
|
A部（經議定事實）── 第二答辯人
該公司
1 該公司於2002年7月5日根據《公司法》在開曼群島註冊成立為獲豁免公司，其股份（股份代號：2336）於2003年3月3日在香港聯合交易所有限公司（“聯交所”）主板上市，於呈請書日期仍然維持上市地位。
2 該公司註冊辦事處的地址為Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive, P.O. Box 2681GT, Grand Cayman KY1-1111, Cayman Islands, British West Indies，而其主要營業地點現時位於香港灣仔港灣道23號鷹君中心15樓1502室。
3 根據該公司於2010年3月31日發表截至2008年12月31日止年度的末期業績公告所述，其法定股本為300,000,000港元，分為3,000,000,000股每股0.10港元的股份，其中1,864,780,000股為已發行股份。
4 下文將該公司及其附屬公司統稱為“該集團”。
該公司的前任管理層及其業務
5 根據該公司就其在聯交所主板上市而刊發日期為2003年2月18日的招股章程所述：
(1) 該集團是一家具相當規模的半導體分銷商，於香港及中國為客戶分銷消費電子與通訊產品、電腦及周邊設備的半導體。除半導體分銷業務外，該集團亦於香港及中國從事為客戶開發及提供電子整套裝置方案。
(2) 第一答辯人當時為該公司執行董事兼主席，負責該集團整體策略性計劃及制定公司政策，以及監察該集團的銷售及市場推廣業務。第一答辯人在銷售及市場推廣半導體及電子部件方面，具有約20年經驗。
(3) 第二答辯人當時是該集團財務總監，並身兼該公司的公司秘書職務。他於2002年5月加入該集團，負責該集團的財務及稅項申報，以精簡該集團的公司架構。第二答辯人主要向第一答辯人匯報。加入該集團前，第二答辯人擁有超過九年核數、會計及財務管理經驗。他持有香港中文大學工商管理學士學位，並為特許會計師公會及香港會計師公會成員。
6 該公司於2008年4月28日刊發的07年年報表示（其中包括）：
(1) 該公司是一家投資控股公司，其附屬公司的主要業務包括製造及買賣電腦元件、買賣電子產品及零件、提供技術方案，以及設計及生產電子零件。
(2) 第一答辯人當時擔任該公司執行董事兼主席，而第二答辯人當時擔任該公司財務總監兼公司秘書。
(3) 第一答辯人負責制定該集團整體企業策略及業務發展，亦負責召集及主持董事會會議。第一答辯人是該集團創辦人，在電子及無線通訊領域擁有逾20年經驗。
(4) 第二答辯人負責該集團的財務及稅項申報。
(5) 該公司的法定股本為300,000,000港元，分為3,000,000,000股每股0.10港元的股份，已發行股本為1,864,680,000股股份。
(6) 第一答辯人於該公司已發行股本中擁有32.63%權益，其中30.63%透過第一答辯人實益擁有的英屬處女群島公司Best Eagle International Limited持有。
7 根據日期為2008年12月11日的持股量披露表格3A，第一答辯人於該公司的權益已增至其已發行股本的33.38%。
該公司的現況
8 截至2008年12月2日前所有關鍵時間，該公司有四名執行董事，即(i)第一答辯人；(ii)蔡達楷；(iii)韓陽；及(iv)廖順強，及三名獨立非執行董事，即(i)楊明泰；(ii)孫漢旭教授；及(iii)陳國明。
9 於2008年12月1日，貿易債權人港泰國際集團有限公司（“港泰”）提出將該公司清盤的呈請。
10 應該公司的要求，其股份於2008年12月2日上午9時30分起暫停買賣。
11 該公司其中一名執行董事（蔡達楷）於2008年12月2日請辭。
12 該公司另外兩名執行董事（韓陽及廖順強）及全體三名獨立非執行董事於2008年12月17日請辭。
13 第二答辯人於2008年12月19日辭去該公司財務總監及公司秘書職務。
14 香港特區高等法院於2008年12月24日委任同屬安永企業財務服務有限公司的廖耀強先生及閻正為先生，為該公司共同及各別臨時清盤人。
15 該公司於2009年1月6日就上述清盤呈請及委任臨時清盤人發出公告。
16 於2009年10月12日，三名獨立非執行董事曹紹基、楊孟璋及潘家利獲委任加入該公司董事會。
17 第一答辯人於2010年3月1日辭任該公司執行董事。
18 聯交所於2010年5月12日將該公司置於除牌程序第三階段。若該公司未能提交可行的復牌建議，聯交所擬於六個月期滿後（即2010年11月11日）取消該公司的上市地位。於本呈請書日期，該公司仍未被除牌。
19 該公司及其部分附屬公司擬進行重組，並向聯交所提交了復牌建議。建議重組及復牌建議詳情與呈請人在本呈請書中提出的申訴並無重大關連。
20 香港特區高等法院於2012年2月2日批准該公司進行重組，由2012年2月23日起生效。香港特區高等法院於2012年2月24日解除該公司的臨時清盤人，並撤銷港泰於2008年12月1日提出的清盤呈請。
21 對兩名執行董事（即孫粗洪先生及蘇家樂先生）及三名獨立非執行董事（即孫克強先生、蔣斌先生及黃慧妍女士）的委任已於2012年2月23日生效。
22 該公司的股份於2012年2月28日恢復買賣。
該公司截至2007年12月31日、2008年6月30日及2008年12月31日的財政狀況
23 根據該公司在2008年4月28日發表的07年年報，截至2007年12月31日：
(1) 該集團的資產總值約568,500,000港元，權益淨值為305,817,000港元。
(2) 該集團擁有553,332,000港元的流動資產及262,479,000港元的流動負債，流動資產淨值為290,853,000港元。
(3) 該集團持有的銀行結餘及現金約為100,800,000港元，而銀行向該集團提供的信貸總額約為221,000,000港元。
(4) 該集團的營業額增長62.8%至1,314,900,000港元，集團純利增長297.2%至100,600,000港元，每股盈利增長183.4%至5.81港仙。
24 根據該公司在2008年9月18日發表截至2008年6月30日止六個月的中期業績：
(1) 該集團的資產總值約732,163,000港元，權益淨值為401,044,000港元。
(2) 該集團擁有701,675,000港元的流動資產及329,501,000港元的流動負債，流動資產淨值為372,174,000港元。
(3) 該集團持有的銀行結餘及現金約為70,131,000港元，而銀行向該集團提供的信貸總額約為223,300,000港元。
(4) 截至2008年6月30日止六個月，該集團營業額增長約77.5%至857,800,000港元，集團純利增長約2.5倍至94,600,000港元，每股盈利增長至5.07港仙。
25 然而，根據該公司於2010年3月31日發表截至2008年12月31日止年度之末期業績公佈：
(1) 該集團的資產總值僅724,000港元，負債淨值為234,058,000港元。
(2) 該集團擁有724,000港元的流動資產及234,782,000港元的流動負債，流動負債淨額為234,058,000港元。
(3) 該集團持有的銀行結餘及現金為724,000港元。
(4) 該集團的營業額下跌至857,810,000港元，集團全年淨虧損為534,851,000港元，每股虧損為28.68港仙。該項虧損包括(i)因若干附屬公司不再綜合計算（“不再綜合計算附屬公司”）而產生的272,032,000港元虧損；(ii)於不再綜合計算附屬公司的投資成本減值14,025,000港元；及(iii)應收不再綜合計算附屬公司款項減值139,819,000港元。
26 顯然，該公司的財政狀況在2008年下半年急劇惡化，由一家持有大量資產、發展蓬勃及有盈利的公司，變成僅餘少量資產、負債纍纍及資不抵債的公司。然而，該公司及其高級人員（包括第一及第二答辯人）於2009年1月6日發出上述有關清盤呈請及委任臨時清盤人的公告前，沒有向其成員及投資大眾披露該公司迅速惡化的財政狀況，違反下文詳述聯交所《上市規則》（“《上市規則》”）訂明的相關披露責任。
該公司在2008年下半年不斷惡化的財政狀況
27 該公司在2008年9月18日發表截至2008年6月30日止六個月的中期業績表示，該集團取得自2003年於聯交所上市以來最佳的中期盈利。該公司股份於2008年9月19日的收市價為0.425港元，較前一日的收市價高11.8%。其股價於2008年9月24日進一步升至0.48港元。
28 然而，繼該公司股價於2008年9月24日升至0.48港元的最高價位後，股價於2008年10月23日回落至0.118港元收市，累計跌幅達75%，同期恒生指數由18,961點下跌至13,760點（即跌幅為27%）。此外，收市價0.118港元較前一日的收市價0.136港元顯著下跌13%。
29 於2008年10月23日，該公司應聯交所要求發出公告，表示已知悉最近該公司的股份價格下降，但並不知悉該項變動的任何原因，亦不知悉有任何事宜為根據《上市規則》第13.09條所規定的一般責任而須予公開者。
30 事實上，該公司約於2008年10月起經歷嚴重財政困難，詳情載於下文。
(i) 未能償還到期的銀行債項
31 於2008年10月，緊隨該集團未能償還銀行信貸的到期款項後，該集團已與七名銀行債權人就集團的財政狀況及前景展開討論，該七家銀行為恒生銀行、星展銀行（香港）有限公司、交通銀行股份有限公司、永亨銀行、上海商業銀行有限公司、中信嘉華銀行有限公司及中國銀行（香港）有限公司（“銀行集團”）。
32 恒生銀行：
(1) 根據日期為2008年10月31日的要求償債書，恒生銀行要求該公司及該公司旗下多家附屬公司償還尚欠該行約42,900,000港元及800,000美元的款項。
(2) 在發出上述要求償債書後，李郭羅律師行代表恒生銀行向該公司及其附屬公司發出日期為2008年11月11日的法定要求償債書，其後再發出日期為2008年11月28日的要求償債函件。
33 交通銀行股份有限公司：
的近律師行代表交通銀行股份有限公司發出日期為2008年11月10日的要求償債書，要求該公司及其附屬公司償還尚欠該行約29,300,000港元及160,000美元的款項。
34 中國銀行（香港）有限公司：
根據日期分別為2008年11月10日及12日的要求償債書，中國銀行（香港）有限公司要求該公司附屬公司（穎濤發展有限公司）償還約1,125,000港元及3,717,000港元的逾期負債。其後，曾宇佐陳遠翔律師行代表中國銀行（香港）有限公司發出日期為2008年11月17日的要求償債書，要求該公司償還尚欠該行約14,900,000港元的款項。
35 永亨銀行：
根據日期為2008年11月17日的要求償債書，永亨銀行要求該公司及該公司旗下多家附屬公司償還尚欠該行約25,400,000港元及200,000美元的款項。
36 星展銀行（香港）有限公司：
根據日期為2008年11月21日的要求償債書，星展銀行（香港）有限公司要求該公司旗下多家附屬公司償還尚欠該行約31,380,000港元、37,230美元、670,000港元及人民幣1,300,000元的款項。
37 上海商業銀行有限公司：
根據日期為2008年11月28日的要求償債書，上海商業銀行有限公司要求該公司旗下多家附屬公司償還尚欠該行逾22,320,000港元及600,000美元的款項。
38 該公司及其附屬公司未能符合或滿足銀行債權人的上述要求。
(ii) 未能償還拖欠港泰的貿易債項
39 該集團供應商港泰自2008年10月起一直向該集團追討一筆為數8,600,000港元的貿易債項，這筆債項來自兩份日期分別為2008年6月6日及2008年7月3日的未付發票。要求償債函件先後於2008年10月21日及2008年10月28日發出，並警告除非七天內付款，否則會採取法律行動。最後，法定要求償債書於2008年11月4日送達該公司，表示除非在21日內全數付款，否則會在此期間展開清盤程序。
40 由於該公司並無向港泰付款，因此將該公司清盤的呈請於2008年12月1日提出。於2010年1月25日就該呈請召開的押後聆訊上，法庭命令將該呈請的聆訊進一步押後至2010年5月17日。根據該公司日期為2010年5月26日的公告，法庭在2010年5月11日頒令，將該呈請的聆訊進一步押後至2010年11月1日。
(iii) 委任安永會計師事務所進行有限財務檢討及協助擬訂債務重組計劃
41 於2008年11月21日，該公司應永亨銀行的要求，委任安永會計師事務所（“安永”）進行一項有限財務檢討，並協助擬訂該公司的債務重組計劃。委任函件由第一答辯人代表該公司簽訂。
42 根據上述委任，安永將就有限財務檢討向該公司提供的服務範圍如下：
“ (i) 與該公司董事及高級管理人員（“管理層”）會面，了解上市公司的架構、活動、營運及其他相關事項；
(ii) 審閱可反映資產負債詳情的現有資料，包括該公司最近期的經審核財務報表，以及截至2008年10月31日（或最後可取得日期）的未經審核管理帳目；
(iii) 分析該集團於最後可行日期的銀行負債狀況；
(iv) 與管理層共同審閱及討論該公司未來12個月的每月盈虧及現金流量預測（“預測”），並審閱及討論擬備預測時採用的相關假設是否合理；
(v) 就上述事項擬備報告（“報告”）以提呈貴方及銀行債權人省覽。”
43 安永編製日期為2008年12月10日的有限財務檢討報告揭發以下事宜：
(1) 根據管理帳目所載，截至2008年6月30日，該集團資產總值約702,000,000港元，最大資產為共計528,000,000港元的“應收帳款、按金及預付款項”。然而，應收帳款周轉率偏低，原因是該公司近期的產品有技術缺陷，導致客戶拒絕在問題未獲糾正前清付購貨款項。
(2) 該集團目前未能償還到期的本金及利息。截至2008年10月31日拖欠的本金及利息總額約達205,000,000港元。
(3) 該集團極度倚賴應收貿易帳款來產生現金流量，以向銀行債權人償還本金及利息。然而，由於大部分貿易債項仍有待收取，另一方面銀行又緊縮信貸額，導致該集團現金流量緊絀。
(4) 根據資產及負債估計可變現價值（清盤分析），在為數732,000,000港元的資產總值（截至2008年6月30日）中，估計可變現價值僅45,000,000港元，短欠總額約483,000,000港元。
(iv) 2008年11月26日的第一次所有銀行債權人會議
44 第一次所有銀行債權人會議在2008年11月26日應該公司的邀請召開。出席會議人士為第一及第二答辯人、安永的代表及銀行集團（恒生銀行及星展銀行（香港）有限公司除外）的代表。
45 在第一次所有銀行債權人會議上：
(1) 安永的廖耀強檢視了載於一份“資料備忘錄”（Information Memorandum）及“截至2008年10月31日的銀行貸款摘要”（Summary of Bank Loans as at 31 October 2008）的該公司財政現況。
(2) 該資料備忘錄顯示，該公司有：
(c) 共333,200,000港元債項（包括欠銀行債權人204,900,000港元、欠貿易債權人89,600,000港元及欠稅務局38,700,000港元）；及
(d) 共731,120,000港元資產，其中大部分（627,660,000港元）由以下項目組成：(i) 存貨（99,480,000港元）及 (ii) 應收帳款、按金及預付款項（528,180,000港元）。
(3) 第一及第二答辯人解釋，該公司的財政困難是由於下列原因所致：
(d) 其產品的技術故障對該公司造成重大損害，尤其是影響到該公司與中國移動等策略夥伴、其債務人及供應商的關係；
(e) 錯誤判斷現況；及
(f) 與銀行債權人之間出現溝通問題。
(4) 第一答辯人進一步提及，當時正透過創越融資安排一項配售，目標是籌集約36,000,000港元資金，其中三分之一（約12,000,000港元）會用來向銀行債權人還款，其餘三分之二（約24,000,000港元）則會用作營運資金。
(v) 試圖配售新股
46 該公司在2008年11月26日發出了一份有關建議配售新股的公告。
47 該公告述明多項事宜，其中包括：
(1) 該公司與台證證券（香港）有限公司（“配售代理”）訂立了日期為2008年11月25日的配售協議，據此，該公司已同意以有條件方式，透過配售代理按竭誠盡力基準，按配售價每股股份0.1港元，配售不多於360,000,000股配售股份。
(2) 360,000,000股配售股份的最高數目相等於該公司現有已發行股本約19.31%，並佔經配售事項擴大的該公司全部已發行股本約16.18%。
(3) 配售事項所得款項總額將為36,000,000港元。配售事項所得款項淨額將約為34,900,000港元，並擬用作該公司的一般營運資金及減少該集團的銀行借貸。
48 上述公告在“進行配售事項之原因及所得款項之用途”一節下表示：
“董事認為，配售事項將加強本集團之財務狀況，為本集團提供籌集更多資金之良機。董事進一步認為，鑑於現時市場狀況及債務融資之相關成本，透過股本融資籌集資金以減少本公司對債務融資之倚賴，對本公司而言乃審慎之舉。因此，董事認為，配售事項乃屬公平合理，且符合本公司及其股東之整體利益。”
49 上述公告完全沒有提及該公司當時惡劣的財政狀況，包括該公司未能償還拖欠銀行及供應商的巨額債項，以及未能支付員工薪金。該公告並無提及已向該公司送達的法定要求償債書，亦無提及安永已獲委任進行有限財務檢討及協助擬訂該公司的債務重組計劃。
50 建議的新股配售最終並未成事。
(vi) 2008年12月10日的第二次所有銀行債權人會議
51 第二次所有銀行債權人會議在2008年12月10日召開。出席會議人士為第一及第二答辯人、安永的代表及銀行集團的代表。
52 在第二次所有銀行債權人會議上：
(1) 廖耀強不但指出有限財務檢討報告的多項重點，還表示該公司在大約一個月之前已將其所有簿冊及紀錄遷移至其中國內地辦事處。此舉顯然違反《公司條例》。
(2) 第一答辯人表示，拖欠中國內地員工的薪金在2008年11月初約為2,000,000港元。然而，有關欠款截至該次會議的日期為止已增至約3,600,000港元。由於該公司未能支付欠薪，中國內地員工遂展開罷工，深圳辦事處的運作陷於停頓。
(3) 第二答辯人聲稱，之前是基於稅務原因及業務擴展所需，才將該公司及其附屬公司的簿冊及紀錄移往深圳辦事處，而該等簿冊及紀錄正移回香港辦事處，但由於深圳辦事處的員工罷工，有關工作進展非常緩慢。
53 上文所述的下列各項，在下文中將統稱為“該等事件”：(i)未能償還到期的銀行債項一事以及由銀行債權人或代銀行債權人發出的要求償債書或法定要求償債書；(ii)未能償還拖欠港泰的貿易債項一事以及由港泰發出的法定要求償債書；(iii)委任安永進行有限財務檢討及協助擬訂債務重組計劃一事；(iv)有限財務檢討報告所揭露該集團惡劣的財政狀況；(v)第一次及第二次所有銀行債權人會議；及(vi)自2008年11月初起未能向中國內地員工支付薪金一事。
相關《上市規則》
54 以下為相關的《上市規則》：
第3.08(f)條
“上市發行人的董事會須共同負責管理與經營上市發行人的業務。本交易所要求董事須共同與個別地履行誠信責任及應有技能、謹慎和勤勉行事的責任，而履行上述責任時，至少須符合香港法例所確立的標準。即每名董事在履行其董事職務時，必須……以應有的技能、謹慎和勤勉行事，程度相當於別人合理地預期一名具備相同知識及經驗，並擔任上市發行人董事職務的人士所應有的程度。”
第13.04條
“發行人的董事須共同及個別地負責確保發行人全面遵守《上市規則》。”
第13.09(1)條
“一般而言，除遵守本章的各項具體規定外，發行人須在合理地切實可行的情況下，盡快向本交易所、發行人的股東及其上市證券的其他持有人通知任何與集團有關的資料（包括與集團業務範圍內任何主要新發展有關的而未為公眾人士知悉的資料），該等資料為：
(d) 供上述機構、人士及公眾人士評估集團的狀況所必需者；或
(e) 避免其證券的買賣出現虛假市場的情況所必需者；或
(f) 可合理預期會重大影響其證券的買賣及價格者。”
第13.09(1)條註4及11
“4. 由於有關資料可能對發行人上市證券的市價造成影響，所以何時向市場公布該等資料極為重要。首要的原則是，任何可影響證券價格的資料，須於董事會作出決定後立即公布。凡未有遵照此原則者，本交易所可暫停其證券的買賣。
11. 在下述情況下，發行人必須立即通知本交易所、發行人的股東以及其上市證券的其他持有人，不得有誤：
……
(ii) 據董事所知，發行人的財政狀況或其業務表現又或發行人對本身表現的預期有所轉變，而若市場得悉此等轉變很可能會導致其上市證券價格大幅波動；
……
發行人的董事有責任根據發行人的業務、營運及財政表現去釐定甚麼是重要的資料。資料的重要程度對各個發行人也不盡相同，需視乎其財政表現的情況、資產的多少及市值的大小、業務營運的性質以及其他因素而定。某項事件，對規模較小的發行人之業務及事務而言雖然屬於「重大」或「主要」，但對大規模的發行人而言則通常也不算重要。發行人的董事是最能決定何謂重要資料的一方。本交易所也明白，有關資料披露的決定需涉及仔細而主觀的判斷，同時，本交易所鼓勵發行人在不肯定應否披露若干資料時諮詢本交易所的意見。”
第13.10條
“如發行人上市證券的價格或成交量有異常波動或有其他問題，而本交易所就有關事宜向發行人查詢，則發行人須盡速回應，並提供發行人所知的有關資料，或（如屬適用）按照《上市規則》第2.07C條的規定發表公告，公告內載有聲明，表示發行人並不知悉有任何事宜或發展，會導致或可能導致其上市證券價格或成交量出現異常的波動。對於本交易所的其他查詢，發行人亦須盡速回應。”
第13.10條註1
“如本交易所的查詢與證券價格或成交量的異常波動有關，而發行人的董事知悉任何可能與此等波動有關的事宜，則應……發出公告，以澄清有關情況……”
第13.12條
“《上市規則》第13.13至13.19條所述的事項，包括因公司本身的直接關係或是透過附屬及聯屬公司的間接關係而產生的事項，均應以集團作為考慮基準。”
第13.19條
“如發行人違反貸款協議的條款，而所涉及的貸款對發行人的業務運作影響重大，違約可能會使貸款人要求即時償還貸款，而且貸款人並未就有關違約事宜作出豁免，這樣，即產生一般披露責任。”
第13.47條
“發行人的年度報告必須符合《上市規則》附錄十六中有關年度報告的條文。發行人的財務摘要報告必須符合《公司（上市公司的財務摘要報告）規例》所載條文的規定。
註：發行人須注意附錄十六第6至35段（首尾兩段包括在內）以及第 50段的規定。”
附錄十六第12段
“ 上市發行人應提供董事及高層管理人員簡短的個人資料。此等資料包括姓名、年齡、其於上市發行人或該集團的其他成員公司擔任的職位、其於上市發行人或該集團的服務年資，以及股東所需知道的有關該等人士的能力和品格的其他資料（如業務經驗）。倘任何董事及
高層管理人員與其他董事或高層管理人員有以下任何一種關係者，須予披露該等關係。此等關係為：配偶；與該董事或高層管理人員同居儼如配偶的人；任何親屬關係如任何年齡的子女或繼子女、父母或繼父母、兄弟、姊妹、繼兄弟或繼姊妹、配偶的父母、子女的配偶、兄弟姊妹的配偶、配偶的兄弟姊妹。倘上市發行人的董事為另一間公司的董事或僱員，以及該公司擁有上市發行人股份及相關股份中的權益，而此等權益根據《證券及期貨條例》第XV部第2及第3分部須向發行人披露，則此事實須予披露。”
第12.1段
“上市發行人的董事應負責決定哪些個別人士（一個或以上）為高層管理人員。高層管理人員可包括上市發行人附屬公司的董事，以及上市發行人的董事認為合適的集團內其他科、部門或營運單位的主管。”
第12.2段
“就中國發行人而言，凡本段中提及董事及高層管理人員之處，也包括監事。”
違反披露責任
55 該公司未有向其成員、投資大眾及聯交所披露該等事件或其任何一項，違反了《上市規則》。
(1) 第13.09條
該等事件構成重要資料及／或股價敏感資料，原因是它們清楚顯示該公司有非常嚴重的財政困難。該公司理應向其成員、投資大眾及聯交所披露該等事件，但卻沒有如此行事。在該公司於2009年1月6日發出公告，公布港泰提出清盤呈請以及臨時清盤人的委任前，該公司的成員及投資大眾從未獲告知該公司有嚴重財政困難。
(2) 第13.10條
該公司知悉其有嚴重財政困難，故當聯交所就該公司股價的異常波動作出查詢時，該公司理應據實向聯交所作出回應。然而，該公司卻在2008年10月23日發出一份標準否定公告，表示該公司並不知悉導致股價異常波動（較前一日的收市價0.136港元下跌13%）的任何原因，亦不知悉有任何事宜為根據《上市規則》第13.09條所規定的一般責任而須予公開者。
(3) 第13.19條
上文第31至37段所述的銀行貸款對該公司的業務運作影響重大。該公司理應向其成員、投資大眾及聯交所披露其未能償還到期的銀行債項一事，以及由銀行債權人或代銀行債權人發出的要求償債書或法定要求償債書，但該公司並沒有如此行事。
55A. 第一答辯人在其日期為2011年5月31日的誓詞第19段中，對張炳根先生於該公司所擔任的高級職位及其職責作出了描述。有關資料卻沒有在2007年年報披露，違反了《上市規則》第13.47條及附錄十六第12段。
56 該公司的董事會屢次沒有確保該公司遵守《上市規則》，因此亦違反了《上市規則》第3.08(f)及13.04條。
第二答辯人根據《證券及期貨條例》第214條須負的法律責任
57 基於上述事宜，該公司的業務或事務曾以以下方式經營或處理：
(1) 涉及對該公司、其成員或其部分成員作出不當行為或其他失當行為；
(2) 導致其成員或其部分成員未獲提供他們可合理期望獲得的關於該公司的業務或事務的所有資料；及／或
(3) 對其成員或其部分成員造成不公平損害。
58 第二答辯人在所有關鍵時間身為該公司的財務總監，知悉或理應知悉該公司惡劣的財政狀況，並理應使該公司的董事會（包括第一答辯人）全面得悉此事。第二答辯人沒有如此行事，導致該公司及其董事會如上所述違反《上市規則》。在此前提下，第二答辯人亦須對該公司的業務或事務曾以上述方式經營或處理負部分責任。
日期：2013年2月 22日
| _______________________ |
____________________________ |
| 第二答辯人 |
呈請人 |
| 李澤滔 |
證券及期貨事務監察委員會 |
|