{"id":5026,"date":"2024-01-02T16:54:14","date_gmt":"2024-01-02T08:54:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boasecohencollins.com\/?p=5026"},"modified":"2024-01-02T16:54:17","modified_gmt":"2024-01-02T08:54:17","slug":"inside-information-the-need-to-comply","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boasecohencollins.com\/zh-hant\/%e7%b6%b2%e8%aa%8c\/inside-information-the-need-to-comply\/","title":{"rendered":"Inside information \u2013 the need to comply"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Alex Liu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hong Kong, 2 January 2024:<\/strong> Listed companies have been reminded of the importance of having written guidelines and internal control policies concerning the disclosure of inside information following a significant ruling<\/a> by the Market Misconduct Tribunal (MMT). The disciplinary body has sanctioned Mayer Holdings Limited and nine of its former senior executives for failing to disclose inside information as soon as reasonably practicable as required under the Securities and Futures Ordinance<\/a> (SFO).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The panel found Mayer had no written guidelines or internal control policies on such matters, which resulted in its breach of the disclosure requirement. The hearing also decided that the nine former executives had not taken all reasonable measures to ensure proper safeguards were put in place and that their intentional, reckless or negligent conduct had resulted in the breach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The MMT was told that between April and August 2012, Mayer\u2019s then auditors repeatedly informed management about issues they identified while checking the firm\u2019s financial statements. These included: the suspicious nature of the disposal of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mayer; the fact that Mayer did not control projects it had bought in Vietnam and that the valuations of these appeared to be inflated; and that Mayer\u2019s jointly controlled entities made two substantial prepayments without security to suppliers which appeared to be irrecoverable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mayer then received a resignation letter from the auditors in December 2012 but took four weeks to disclose the auditors\u2019 resignation together with brief details of the outstanding audit issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the hearing, the MMT ordered that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n