5 research outputs found

    Hong Kong’s Public Enforcement Model of Investor Protection

    Get PDF
    AbstractThe market of a successful financial centre must be efficient, orderly, and fair, which requires that investor protection rules be enforced effectively. While a substantial literature exists promoting privately driven enforcement of investor protection rules, there is a growing consensus that enforcement action by public bodies is likely to be more important for most markets than privately initiated litigation. Hong Kong exemplifies this point. In Hong Kong, public authorities carry almost the entire burden of enforcing corporate and securities laws. Yet Hong Kong functions at a high level of quality globally despite operating a market in which most companies are foreign-incorporated—often originating from jurisdictions with reputations for governance that are middling at best—and trading takes place in multiple currencies. To revisit the debate on the determinants of effective corporate and securities law enforcement, this paper evaluates the enforcement of investor protection laws in Hong Kong. The paper first examines the institutional context, presenting key corporate and securities regulation and explaining avenues for private and public actions. It looks at the powers and competencies of the relevant supervisory authorities, including the stock exchange, which has a quasi-public role in regulating the market. Then, using publicly available data supplemented through interviews with agency staff, the paper presents Hong Kong’s enforcement “inputs” (funding and staffing) and “outputs” (actions and sanctions) for the main public enforcers. We find evidence that the Hong Kong public enforcement model effectively disciplines even its dangerous environment of foreign companies, controlling shareholders, and complex, international groups, and might be able better to do so exactly because of a focus on public, rather than private, enforcement.</jats:p

    A phase II clinical study on the efficacy and predictive biomarker of pegylated recombinant arginase on hepatocellular carcinoma

    No full text
    AbstractBackground: Pegylated recombinant human arginase (PEG-BCT-100) is an arginine depleting drug. Preclinical studies showed that HCC is reliant on exogenous arginine for growth due to the under-expression of the arginine regenerating enzymes argininosuccinate synthetase (ASS) and ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC). Methods: This is a single arm open-label Phase II trial to assess the potential clinical efficacy of PEG-BCT-100 in chemo naïve sorafenib-failure HCC patients. Pre-treatment tumour biopsy was mandated for ASS and OTC expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Weekly intravenous PEG-BCT-100 at 2.7 mg/kg was given. Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP); secondary endpoints included radiological response as per RECIST1.1, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment outcomes were correlated with tumour immunohistochemical expressions of ASS and OTC. Results: In total 27 patients were recruited. The median TTP and PFS were both 6 weeks (95% CI, 5.9–6.0 weeks). The disease control rate (DCR) was 21.7% (5 stable disease). The drug was well tolerated. Post hoc analysis showed that duration of arginine depletion correlated with OS. For patients with available IHC results, 10 patients with ASS-negative tumour had OS of 35 weeks (95% CI: 8.3–78.0 weeks) vs. 15.14 weeks (95% CI: 13.4–15.1 weeks) in 3 with ASS-positive tumour; expression of OTC did not correlate with treatment outcomes. Conclusions: PEG-BCT-100 in chemo naïve post-sorafenib HCC is well tolerated with moderate DCR. ASS-negative confers OS advantage over ASS-positive HCC. ASS-negativity is a potential biomarker for OS in HCC and possibly for other ASS-negative arginine auxotrophic cancers. Trial registration number: NCT01092091. Date of registration: March 23, 2010.</jats:p

    Contributors

    No full text
    corecore