香港上訴法院維持穆迪“紅旗報(bào)告”處罰裁決

The Hong Kong Court of Appeals has upheld a $3m fine for rating agency Moody’s over research it published in 2011 that flagged companies in China.

香港上訴法院(Court of Appeals)維持了對(duì)評(píng)級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)穆迪(Moody's)處罰300萬(wàn)美元的裁決，原因是該機(jī)構(gòu)在2011年發(fā)布的一份研報(bào)中給內(nèi)地企業(yè)標(biāo)貼紅旗警示。

The ruling, which Moody’s appealed in 2015, comes as the Securities and Futures Commission steps up its actions against short sellers in the financial hub. A Hong Kong tribunal in August found a short seller culpable of market misconduct in another example of the city’s watchdog pushing back on market commentary.

上述裁定做出之際(穆迪在2015年提出上訴)正值香港證監(jiān)會(huì)(SFC)加大對(duì)這個(gè)金融中心做空者的打擊力度。去年8月，香港的市場(chǎng)失當(dāng)行為審裁處(Market Misconduct Tribunal)認(rèn)定一名做空者市場(chǎng)行為失當(dāng)，這是香港監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)管束市場(chǎng)評(píng)論的又一例證。

In the Moody’s case, the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal focused on a 2011 report by the rating agency that scored 61 companies for 20 so-called “red flags”. The report covered corporate governance weaknesses, opacity of business models, speed of growth and the quality of their earnings and financial statements.

在穆迪案中，證券及期貨事務(wù)上訴審裁處(Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal)聚焦于該評(píng)級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)在2011年發(fā)表的一份報(bào)告，該報(bào)告用20個(gè)所謂“紅旗”警示對(duì)61家公司打分，涵蓋公司治理弱點(diǎn)、商業(yè)模式不透明、增長(zhǎng)速度以及盈利和財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的質(zhì)量問(wèn)題。

Since the report was published, several of the companies that raised the most flags have experienced problems. One has collapsed and another entered a liquidation process, helping Moody’s rebut the accusation that the research was substandard.

自該報(bào)告發(fā)布以來(lái)，多家被標(biāo)紅旗最多的企業(yè)遇到了麻煩。其中一家企業(yè)破產(chǎn)，另一家進(jìn)入了清盤程序，這有助于穆迪反駁對(duì)于該研究不合格的指控。

Investors had been puzzled by the SFC’s pursuit of the case, because the broad thrust of Moody’s report appears to have been accurate, in terms of flagging risk.

香港證監(jiān)會(huì)追究此案令投資者感到困惑，因?yàn)榫蜆?biāo)旗警示風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而言，穆迪報(bào)告的整體內(nèi)容似乎是準(zhǔn)確的。

Moody’s also claimed that the nature of the report did not fall under the SFC’s jurisdiction. In a statement on Thursday it denounced the decision.

穆迪還稱，該報(bào)告的性質(zhì)并不在香港證監(jiān)會(huì)的管轄范圍內(nèi)。在周四發(fā)表的一份聲明中，穆迪譴責(zé)了這一裁定。

“Moody’s is disappointed by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision. Moody’s did not engage in misleading conduct and disagrees that the Securities and Futures Commission should be able to regulate the content of research publications. Moody’s is reviewing the Court’s opinion and is considering its options,” Donough Foley, Moody’s senior vice-president of government and public affairs, said in a statement.

穆迪負(fù)責(zé)政府及公共事務(wù)的高級(jí)副總裁Donough Foley在一份聲明中表示：“穆迪對(duì)香港上訴法院的裁決感到失望。穆迪沒有作出誤導(dǎo)行為，亦不同意證監(jiān)會(huì)有權(quán)監(jiān)管研究報(bào)告內(nèi)容。穆迪正在審議法院的意見，并在考慮其選擇。”

SFC regulates Moody’s ratings work and has argued that the “red flag” report was included in that remit. It has also called the report shoddy and unprofessional. The SFC did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

香港證監(jiān)會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)管穆迪的評(píng)級(jí)工作，并主張?jiān)?ldquo;紅旗”報(bào)告屬于這一職權(quán)范圍，還稱該報(bào)告低質(zhì)、不專業(yè)。香港證監(jiān)會(huì)周四沒有回應(yīng)記者的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求。

In August, Hong Kong’s Market Misconduct Tribunal found that short seller Andrew Left of Citron Research had used “sensationalist language” and made allegations that were “false and misleading and likely to alarm ordinary investors” in a report on Chinese property developer Evergrande.

去年8月，香港市場(chǎng)失當(dāng)行為審裁處認(rèn)定，在一份針對(duì)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商恒大(Evergrande)的報(bào)告中，做空者、香櫞研究(Citron Research)的安德魯•萊夫特(Andrew Left)使用“夸張的言詞”，并作出了“虛假、具有誤導(dǎo)性且可能令普通投資者感到恐慌”的指控。

The Moody’s ruling came in a week when short sellers descended on Hong Kong to attend the hedge fund-focused Sohn Hong Kong investment conference. At the conference, Carson Block of Muddy Waters took aim at Man Wah Holdings, a Hong Kong-listed sofa maker.

穆迪裁決出爐的同一周，做空者紛紛涌向香港，參加專注對(duì)沖基金的SOHN投資會(huì)議。會(huì)上，渾水研究公司(Muddy Waters)的卡森•布洛克(Carson Block)將目標(biāo)對(duì)準(zhǔn)了在香港上市的沙發(fā)制造商——敏華控股(Man Wah Holdings)。

Man Wah’s shares fell as much as 15.4 per cent, easing to be down 10 per cent at HK$6.03 a share before the company requested a suspension. The sofa maker did not give a reason for requesting the halt. The company’s shares closed 8.6 per cent lower on Tuesday.

敏華控股股價(jià)一度下跌15.4%，但在該公司申請(qǐng)停牌前跌幅收窄至10%，股價(jià)為每股6.03港元。敏華控股沒有給出申請(qǐng)停牌的理由。該公司股價(jià)周二收跌8.6%。