In 2003, Susan Field, a British citizen living and working in Hong Kong, won a case against Barber Asia Ltd, a private financial consulting company. Ms. Field filed a complaint Barber Asia, claiming that she had lost a considerable amount of money due to investment advice it received from its financial advisor, Andrew Barber. Field won. The judge held that, although Barber does not violate professional standards, as written, it violates the duty of professional care. Field against Barber Asia Ltd in Hong Kong for the first time addressing financial advisor was prosecuted for being negligent advice. Seriousness of the situation based on the fact that the field is relatively inexperienced investors who want a low risk strategy, advised to engage in risky schemes are not suitable for its stated purpose. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Barber should compensate the field for its losses. What message does this decision send financial professionals in Hong Kong? Does this indicate a problem at the level of regulation? "Hide
on PS Tso, Monica Park Source: University of Hong Kong, 11 pages. Publication Date: November 14, 2005. Prod. #: HKU438-PDF-ENG
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Low-k Dielectrics at IBM
Time Bandits: How They Are Created Why They Are Tolerated and What Can Be Done About Them
Note on Compensation Research
International Trade Meets Intellectual Porperty: The Making of the TRIPS Agreement (Abridged)
Charlene Barshefsky (A)
Disneys The Lion King (C): Repeat Performance
Microsoft’s IP Ventures
Polaroid-Kodak, Spanish Version
The Trouble with Lenders: Subtleties in the Debt Financing of Commercial Real Estate
Deutsche Bank
