香港證監會訴香櫞案開始聽證

It is not often that Spider-Man features in share price discussions or the activities of short-sellers. On Monday, however, the superhero made an appearance in a case before a Hong Kong tribunal.

有關股價的討論或做空者的活動與蜘蛛俠(Spider-Man)扯上關係，這並不常見。然而，本週一，這位超級英雄卻在香港一個案件的聽證會中被提及。

The body is hearing accusations of market misconduct by Andrew Left, the US short-seller best known for his recent high-profile battle with Valeant, the US drugmaker.

香港“市場失當行爲審裁處”正在對安德魯•萊夫特(Andrew Left)受到的市場不當行爲指控展開聽證。萊夫特是美國的一名做空者，他最知名的事蹟是不久前高調挑戰美國製藥商Valeant。

The Hong Kong case marks one of the first times a regulator has pursued a case based on public commentary by someone who is not a licensed financial professional. Short-sellers and other commentators are watching the case closely over worries that a ruling could have a “chilling” effect on their ability to opine freely on listed stocks.

香港的這個案件標誌着，監管機構開始基於非持照金融專業人士的公開言論提起訴訟。做空者及其他評論人士正密切關注這一案件，因爲他們擔心該案裁決或將讓他們“不敢”自由表達對上市公司股票的觀點。

Inevitably debates over the merits of short selling turn to free speech arguments. In the Valeant case, Mike Pearson, its chief executive, likened Mr Left to someone “who runs into a crowded theatre and falsely yells fire” — the famous limit to free speech identified by US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

辯論的焦點不可避免地由做空行爲的價值轉向了言論自由。在Valeant一案中，該公司首席執行官邁克•皮爾遜(Mike Pearson)將萊夫特比作“跑進坐滿觀衆的劇院大聲謊報起火”的人——這是美國最高法院(US Supreme Court)大法官奧利弗•溫德爾•霍姆斯(Oliver Wendell Holmes)對言論自由限度的著名論斷。

Mr Left’s response to that criticism: “Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a lot different than walking into a theatre, smelling smoke and yelling, ‘Hey everyone, there could be a fire’.”

對這一指責，萊夫特迴應道：“在坐滿觀衆的劇院高喊起火，與走進劇院、聞到煙味、然後高喊‘大家注意，可能有火情！’是截然不同的行爲。”

The short-seller was not in Hong Kong himself on Monday for the opening of the case brought by the Securities and Futures Commission. At the heart of it lies a 2012 report by Mr Left and his group, Citron Research, that alleged fraud and accounting misstatements at Evergrande, a Chinese property group. Evergrande vigorously denied the claims.

週一，這個由香港證監會(Securities and Futures Commission)提起的案件開始聽證時，這位做空者本人並不在香港。該案的核心是一份由萊夫特及其旗下的香櫞研究(Citron Research)在2012年發佈的報告，該報告聲稱中國房地產公司恆大地產(Evergrande)存在欺詐和報表不實。恆大堅決否認了這一說法。

The SFC alleges the Citron report contained false or misleading information about Evergrande. Proving misconduct, a civil offence that can carry bans and orders to disgorge profits, involves showing the accused knowingly made false or misleading statements, or was reckless or negligent in doing so — and demonstrating that the information is likely to induce buying or selling in the underlying security.

香港證監會聲稱，香櫞研究的報告中關於恆大的信息存在虛假或誤導之處。所謂市場失當行爲是一種民事違法行爲，可能會被處以禁令並被要求交還相關盈利。要證明當事人存在市場失當行爲，需展示當事人故意或因爲草率大意發出了虛假或誤導性言論，還需展示當事人發佈的信息可能會引發對相關證券的買入或賣出操作。

Spider-Man, or rather his alter ego Peter Parker, was brought up by Mr Left’s defence. Laurence Li, representing him, said he hoped the case would avoid enshrining what he called the “Spider-Man argument” that can impose a sliding scale of responsibility on financial commentators depending on their public following.”

代表萊夫特出庭的是他的辯護律師Laurence Li。Li提到了蜘蛛俠，或者應該說是蜘蛛俠的另一個自我彼得•帕克(Peter Parker)。他說，他希望該案會避免合法化那種“蜘蛛俠式主張”，該主張的邏輯是，金融評論人士揹負的責任有輕有重，取決於他們的公衆感召力大小。

Mr Li was trying to head off a ruling that would echo the warning given to the young Peter by his uncle, Ben, who said that “with greater influence comes greater responsibility”.

Li試圖阻止法官做出與蝙蝠俠中彼得的叔叔邏輯相同的裁決——彼得的叔叔本(Ben)曾警告年輕的彼得，“影響越大，責任就越大”。

“It would be our submission that the law does not do that,” Mr Li said.

Li表示：“我方意見是，法律不會這樣裁定。”

Justice Michael Hartmann, chairing the tribunal and seemingly not a Spider-Man aficionado, took a different view after the reference was explained to him.

主持此次審理的法官夏正民(Michael Hartmann)似乎不是“蜘蛛俠”迷，在聽取了對此類比的解釋後，他表達了不同的看法。

“It’s not actually the influence of the person that matters, it’s the fact that what is published is likely to affect the share price — so that means the more influential you are, the more it’s likely to affect the share price,” he said.

他說：“事實上，重要的不是這個人的影響力，而是發表的內容可能會影響股價，因此這意味着你的影響力越大，股價越可能受到影響。”

The case is scheduled to last for two weeks. Opening arguments introduced a new fact: the Citron report on Evergrande was triggered by an anonymous tip-off, in the form of a bundle of papers, sent to Mr Left at his home. The SFC alleges the package formed a large part of the final report.

聽證會計劃將持續兩週。開場陳述披露了一個新的事實：香櫞有關恆大的報告是由一份匿名爆料引發的，爆料者將一包文件寄到了萊夫特的家中。香港證監會聲稱，這份包裹中的內容佔最終報告的很大一部分。

“We are not suggesting they are identical but the Citron report, we would submit, is substantially based on this bundle,” Peter Duncan, acting for the SFC, told the tribunal.

代表香港證監會的彼得•鄧肯(Peter Duncan)告訴法官：“我們並不是說它們完全一樣，但我們認爲，香櫞的報告在很大程度上是基於這包文件。”

The Citron hearing comes as Hong Kong’s commentators are waiting for the verdict of another SFC case involving a report from Moody’s, the rating agency. There, the regulator claims the report was a “shoddy” piece of ratings work, which is carried out under licence. Moody’s contends the report, whose study of accounting “red flags” on Chinese companies proved mostly accurate in hindsight, was not ratings work.

在香櫞一案的聽證會開始之際，香港的評論人士正等待香港證監會另一起案件的裁決，此案涉及評級機構穆迪(Moody's)的一份報告。香港證監會聲稱，這份報告是由一家持有執照的評級機構撰寫的粗製濫造的評級報告。穆迪則主張，這份報告並非評級報告，報告對中國企業會計“危機信號”的研究，事後被證明基本準確。

The regulator’s pursuit of the two cases has worried hedge funds, other short-sellers and the analyst community more generally.

香港證監會提起的這兩起案件引發了對衝基金、其他做空者以及分析師圈子的普遍擔憂。

David Webb, a corporate governance activist in Hong Kong, warned when the two investigations became public that “free markets depend on free speech and the open exchange of opinions and analysis, whether it turns out to be right or wrong”.

香港公司治理活動人士戴維•韋布(David Webb)在這兩項調查公之於衆時警告稱，“自由市場取決於言論自由以及觀點和分析的公開交流，不管它們最終被證明是對還是錯”。

The Left case will be watched carefully, with or without more superheroes.

萊夫特案將受到密切關注，不管會不會提到更多超級英雄。