China's Crackdown
Government officials step up enforcement of new securities law.
March 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM
6 minute read
Chinese brothers Tang Wanxin and Tang Wanli were among the world's most successful tomato farmers. Between 1986 and 2004, they built their tomato company, D'Long International Ltd., into a behemoth on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. The conglomerate invested heavily in hundreds of industrial and financial services companies.
Although the Tangs may have been farmers when they started D'Long, they were no ordinary farmers.
“The Tangs were well-connected with the old school government and the banking industry, so they had access to political clout and financing,” says Robert Kwauk, a partner at Blake Cassels & Graydon's Beijing office.
In other words, the Tangs had the power and connections that kept them out of the law's reach in the chaotic world of Chinese securities regulation.
That was until recently.
On Jan. 19, just two weeks after China's newly amended securities law took effect, a court in the Hubei Province began hearing charges against Tang Wanxin and six senior managers at D'Long. The government charged the defendants with illegally raising more than $5.6 billion from the public between 2001 and 2004. It implicates 2,500 organizations and 32,000 individuals. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has hailed the case as “a turning point in China's securities market.”
Although the case is technically a criminal enforcement action, observers have noted the proximity between the news of the new securities law and the charges against individuals previously regarded as above the law.
“The fact that people as well-connected as Tang and his associates are not immune shows that the government now has the will to make the securities system work as it should,” Kwauk says.
But others doubt that the government will make much progress.
Harsher Punishments
“No matter what changes the Chinese make, the difficulty with their securities laws has always been the lack of enforcement power residing in the CSRC,” says Xiaoyu Greg Liu, an associate in the Hong Kong office of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.
Until the new amendments came into force, the only sanctions available to the CSRC were public reprimands, denying future listing applications and revoking the professional registration of offenders. But even these limited powers have been circumscribed by market conditions: the Chinese markets reached eight-year lows last year and there wasn't a single new listing in 2005. In other words, there wasn't anything for the CSRC to deny.
The amendments address some of these problems. Article 180 of the new law gives the CSRC power to freeze funds, securities and other assets involved in illegal securities transactions if there is danger that those under investigation will transfer or conceal the assets. The law also gives the commission similar seizure powers if they believe those under investigation might tamper or destroy evidence.
“Previously only judges, criminal prosecutors and the police could exercise such powers,” says Allen Zhong, a securities lawyer with the Beijing office of Clifford Chance.
The CSRC responded quickly to its new powers, issuing guidelines right after the government passed the amendments. Liu, though, is still critical of the new enforcement measures.
“The CSRC still will not have subpoena powers, which means that its ability to prevent abuse will be limited since it will not be able to access information until someone is charged or a company collapses,” he says.
Liu argues that this is what happened in the D'Long scenario, where the company's complicated structure left authorities in the dark until it collapsed under pressure from creditors.
Enforcement Muscle
Also suspect is the CSRC's capacity to take advantage of its new powers.
“It's not a question of just changing the law,” says Doug Markel, a partner with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Beijing. “China needs better enforcement.”
While there has been no official signal that the government intends to beef up the commission, the CSRC has stepped up securities enforcement. Chinese officials arrested more than 30 top executives at Chinese listed companies in 2005. The CSRC also has been pressing ahead with tougher rules for securities brokerages.
And quite apart from regulatory enforcement, the new law embraces other mechanisms for protecting investors.
“The new law reinforces the liability of officers and directors by holding them responsible for the content of public filings,” says Carmen Chang, who heads Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's China practice.
Similarly, the new law makes investment-consulting firms liable for false or misleading information disseminated through the media. The amendments also require the CSRC to set up a company to manage, invest and apply the monies in an investor-protection fund to compensate creditors and investors who have been affected by the closure or liquidation of securities companies. The CSRC has yet to establish the size of the fund and the mechanics of compensation.
“The mere enactment of these measures, regardless of the ultimate form of the regulations or the effectiveness of enforcement, represents a milestone in the evolution of Chinese securities law to a Western model,” Kwauk says.
Some observers suggests that Americans, of all people, should recognize the process and give the Chinese credit for it.
Road Ahead
According to Morris DeFeo, a corporate securities partner with Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C., the current state of the securities market in China is reminiscent of the U.S. securities environment just before the Great Depression.
“A lot of the bad things that are happening in China–loose treatment of deposits by banks, unlimited lending against securities, and rampant speculation in securities–is similar to conditions that precipitated the Great Depression and gave rise to commercial and corporate finance regulation,” DeFeo says. “Both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were outgrowths of rife market problems.”
In other words, creating a regulatory structure that would eliminate destabilizing practices was the first step to rectifying market problems in the U.S. As DeFeo sees it, the Chinese are doing the same thing.
“And they're going to have to endure the same evolutionary cycle that we did,” he says. “It all won't happen in one fell swoop.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250