香港证监会诉香橼案开始听证
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.
有关股价的讨论或做空者的活动与蜘蛛侠(Spider-Man)扯上关系，这并不常见。然而，本周一，这位超级英雄却在香港一个案件的听证会中被提及。
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“市场失当行为审裁处”正在对安德鲁•莱夫特(Andrew Left)受到的市场不当行为指控展开听证。莱夫特是美国的一名做空者，他最知名的事迹是不久前高调挑战美国制药商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.
香港的这个案件标志着，监管机构开始基于非持照金融专业人士的公开言论提起诉讼。做空者及其他评论人士正密切关注这一案件，因为他们担心该案裁决或将让他们“不敢”自由表达对上市公司股票的观点。
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.
辩论的焦点不可避免地由做空行为的价值转向了言论自由。在Valeant一案中，该公司首席执行官迈克•皮尔逊(Mike Pearson)将莱夫特比作“跑进坐满观众的剧院大声谎报起火”的人——这是美国最高法院(US Supreme Court)大法官奥利弗•温德尔•霍姆斯(Oliver Wendell Holmes)对言论自由限度的著名论断。
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’.”
对这一指责，莱夫特回应道：“在坐满观众的剧院高喊起火，与走进剧院、闻到烟味、然后高喊‘大家注意，可能有火情！’是截然不同的行为。”
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.
周一，这个由香港证监会(Securities and Futures Commission)提起的案件开始听证时，这位做空者本人并不在香港。该案的核心是一份由莱夫特及其旗下的香橼研究(Citron Research)在2012年发布的报告，该报告声称中国房地产公司恒大地产(Evergrande)存在欺诈和报表不实。恒大坚决否认了这一说法。
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.
香港证监会声称，香橼研究的报告中关于恒大的信息存在虚假或误导之处。所谓市场失当行为是一种民事违法行为，可能会被处以禁令并被要求交还相关盈利。要证明当事人存在市场失当行为，需展示当事人故意或因为草率大意发出了虚假或误导性言论，还需展示当事人发布的信息可能会引发对相关证券的买入或卖出操作。
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.”
代表莱夫特出庭的是他的辩护律师Laurence Li。Li提到了蜘蛛侠，或者应该说是蜘蛛侠的另一个自我彼得•帕克(Peter Parker)。他说，他希望该案会避免合法化那种“蜘蛛侠式主张”，该主张的逻辑是，金融评论人士背负的责任有轻有重，取决于他们的公众感召力大小。
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试图阻止法官做出与蝙蝠侠中彼得的叔叔逻辑相同的裁决——彼得的叔叔本(Ben)曾警告年轻的彼得，“影响越大，责任就越大”。
“It would be our submission that the law does not do that,” Mr Li said.
Li表示：“我方意见是，法律不会这样裁定。”
Justice Michael Hartmann, chairing the tribunal and seemingly not a Spider-Man aficionado, took a different view after the reference was explained to him.
主持此次审理的法官夏正民(Michael Hartmann)似乎不是“蜘蛛侠”迷，在听取了对此类比的解释后，他表达了不同的看法。
“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.
他说：“事实上，重要的不是这个人的影响力，而是发表的内容可能会影响股价，因此这意味着你的影响力越大，股价越可能受到影响。”
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.
听证会计划将持续两周。开场陈述披露了一个新的事实：香橼有关恒大的报告是由一份匿名爆料引发的，爆料者将一包文件寄到了莱夫特的家中。香港证监会声称，这份包裹中的内容占最终报告的很大一部分。
“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.
代表香港证监会的彼得•邓肯(Peter Duncan)告诉法官：“我们并不是说它们完全一样，但我们认为，香橼的报告在很大程度上是基于这包文件。”
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.
在香橼一案的听证会开始之际，香港的评论人士正等待香港证监会另一起案件的裁决，此案涉及评级机构穆迪(Moody's)的一份报告。香港证监会声称，这份报告是由一家持有执照的评级机构撰写的粗制滥造的评级报告。穆迪则主张，这份报告并非评级报告，报告对中国企业会计“危机信号”的研究，事后被证明基本准确。
The regulator’s pursuit of the two cases has worried hedge funds, other short-sellers and the analyst community more generally.
香港证监会提起的这两起案件引发了对冲基金、其他做空者以及分析师圈子的普遍担忧。
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”.
香港公司治理活动人士戴维•韦布(David Webb)在这两项调查公之于众时警告称，“自由市场取决于言论自由以及观点和分析的公开交流，不管它们最终被证明是对还是错”。
The Left case will be watched carefully, with or without more superheroes.
莱夫特案将受到密切关注，不管会不会提到更多超级英雄。
