{"id":"court_ctb_250_20","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":250,"sub_number":20,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2022-04-22","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 20 Complaint, *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. USB AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), dated October","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 20**\n\nComplaint, *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. USB AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), dated October 5, 2015\n\n#### **[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/2015 02:44 Pij**  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 653316/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/05/2015 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-20 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 2 of 23\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\n\nCOUNTY OF New York\n\nAce Decade Holdings Limited\n\nIndex No.\n\nPlaintiff(s),\n\nDefendant(s).\n\n*-against-*\n\n**\\$summons**\n\nUBS AG\n\nDate Index No. Purchased: October 5, 2015\n\nTo the above named Defendant(s)\n\nUBS AG 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019\n\nYou are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.\n\nThe basis of venue is N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 503 **Which** is proper because Plaintiffs principal place of business is in New York City and both parties reside in New York County.\n\nDated: New York, New York\n\nOctober 5, 2015\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff Ace Decade Holdings Limited 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504\n\n23\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n|  |  |  |                              |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------x |\n|--|--|--|------------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|  |  |  | ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED, |  |                                                                   |\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nDefendant.\n\n**-------------------------------------------------------------x**\n\nINDEX NO. -------\n\n-against-\n\nUBS AG,\n\nCOMPLAINT\n\nJURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nPlaintiff Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\"), by its undersigned counsel, for its complaint against UBS AG (\"UBS\"), alleges, upon knowledge as to itself and its own acts taking place in its presence, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows;\n\n#### **NATURE OF THIS ACTION**\n\n1. This action arises out ofUBS's advice to Ace Decade to invest US \\$500 million in shares of a company through an intermediary entity, Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd. (\"Haixia\"), and related misrepresentations and deception of Ace Decade by UBS.\n\n2. DBS recommended Haixia to Ace Decade as a qualified, independent entity that would pursue Ace Decade's best interests, concealing, as UBS knew, that the intermediary was controlled by UBS's joint venture partner and was motivated to act in UBS's interest to the detriment of Ace Decade.\n\n3. Upon UBS's advice, Ace Decade invested less of its own funds than it had originally planned to invest and borrowed US \\$775 million from UBS to finance the purchase of additional shares. UBS charged Ace Decade \\$40 million in fees, in addition to interest, in connection with this loan.\n\n23\n\n4. As UBS planned, Haixia arranged for UBS to provide the financing for the loan and negotiated with UBS a one-sided financing commitment letter (the \"Financing Letter\") with terms that were highly favorable to UBS, including certain margin call provisions that were much more favorable to UBS and much more onerous to Haixia (and hence, to Ace Decade) than the margin call provisions UBS represented to Ace Decade would be in the final Financing Letter.\n\n5. UBS had earlier told Ace Decade that the rpargin call provisions in any final Financing Letter would give Ace Decade ample time to meet any margin calls, and further that UBS would work cooperatively with Ace Decade in the event of any margin call.\n\n6. In July 2015, when the margin call triggers set forth in the Financing Letter were reached as a result of volatility in the stock market, UBS made a margin call 011 the loan and gave Haixia (and hence, Ace Decade) less than 24 hours to make a prepayment of\\$200 million.\n\n7. Ace Decade informed UBS a few hours before the deadline that it could meet the margin call but would need a little more time. However, UBS informed Ace Decade that it had already begun its efforts to sell off Ace Decade's Shares-I 0% of which it sold to itself-at a 20% discount. UBS acted as it did because the sale would make UBS substantial profits that it could not gain from allowing Ace Decade to meet the margin call, including a \\$29 million fee for prepayment of the loan.\n\n8. **As** a result of UBS's actions, Ace Decade lost its \\$500 million investment. 9. This action seeks compensation for the damages caused by UBS's conduct and/or disgorgement ofUBS's unjust enrichment\n\n-2-\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n23\n\nl 0. Plaintiff Ace Decade is a limited liability investment holding vehicle incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Ace Decade's principal place of business is in New York City.\n\n11. Defendant UBS is a Swiss banking and financial services company. As described by UBS on its website, one ofUBS's \"'main offices worldwide\" is located at 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019.\n\n#### JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 301 and 302 because UBS transacted business in New York that gives rise to the claims herein and UBS committed tortious acts within and without the State that caused injury to Ace Decade in New York. Specifically, this action arises in substantial part from representations by UBS to Ace Decade in New York, and from agreements made by Ace Decade in New York. In addition, UBS ( 1) regularly does or solicits business, engages in a persistent course of conduct, and derives substantial revenue from services rendered in New York; and (2) expects or reasonably should expect its acts to have consequences in this State and derives substantial revenue from international commerce because one ofUBS's principal worldwide offices is based in New York and UBS conducts a substantial portion of its business in New York.\n\n13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 503, because both parties reside in New York County.\n\n#### **FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS**\n\n#### I. **Background**\n\n**14.** In or around May 2014, UBS began discussions with Ace Decade and Ace Decade's agent, Kwok Ho Wan, regarding an investment opportunity (the \"Investment\") in\n\n-3-\n\nan upcoming placement (the \"Placement\") ofH-shares (the \"Shares\") of Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. (\"Haitong\").\n\n15. H-shares are shares of a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\" or \"mainland China\") that are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (\"HKSE\"). Hshares are regulated by Chinese law but are denominated in Hong Kong dollars.\n\n16. Haitong, a joint stock limited company incorporated in the PRC, is a full-service securities firm. Haitong is one of the largest securities firms in the PRC in terms of total assets, net assets, and total revenue. Haitong' s shares have been listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange since July 2007 and its H-Shares have been listed on the HKSE since April 2012. Haitong has a market capitalization on the HKSE of approximately HK \\$46.2 billion (approximately US \\$6 billion) and a market capitalization on the Shanghai Stock Exchange of RMB 178.8 billion ( approximately US \\$27 .9 billion).\n\n17. UBS was one of the joint global coordinators and joint placement agents for the Placement of the Shares.\n\n18. UBS held itself out to Ace Decade as knowledgeable and experienced in advising investors such as Ace Decade with respect to investments in Placements such as this one.\n\n19. As a result, Ace Decade agreed to have UBS act as its advisor in connection with the Investment, including advising on, among other things, how best to make the Investment, including the entity to use to purchase the Shares and the means by which to finance the Investment. Ace Decade thus relied on UBS to act as its fiduciary and to advise it with respect to its Investment in the Shares.\n\n20. Steven Wong, a Managing Director at UBS, served as the primary point of contact to Mr. Kwok. Among other things, Mr. Kwok informed Mr. Wong that (1) he planned to\n\n-4-\n\ninvest approximately US \\$1,000,000,000; (2) he planned to make the .Investment through Ace Decade, a special purpose entity that was directed by his employee, Ms. Yu Yong; and (3) the ultimate purpose of the Investment was to allow Mr. Kwok to enter into a subsequent transaction with other investors in mainland China in which they would exchange the acquired Shares for a controlling interest in shares of another company.\n\nII. **UBS Advised Mr. Kwok** to **Make His Investment Through** an **Intermediary That Was Controlled by UBS's Joint Venture Partner Without Disclosing This Conflict of Interest.**\n\n21. UBS advised Mr. Kwok not to purchase the Shares directly through Ace Decade. Instead, UBS advised Mr. Kwok that because his planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, if Mr. Kwok invested directly through Ace Decade, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings. UBS further advised Mr. Kwok that if Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade invested through an intermediary entity, whereby Ace Decade would be the beneficial owner of the Shares, but the intermediary entity would hold legal title to the Shares, no such disclosure would be required.\n\n22. UBS ultimately recommended that Mr. Kwok select Haixia as the intermediary. UBS represented to Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade that UBS recommended Haixia because Haixia was the best qualified to act for Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade and that Haixia was independent of UBS and would protect Mr. Kwok's and Ace Decade's interests. UBS intended that Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade rely on these representations by UBS. These representations were knowingly false, and Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade relied on these representations to their detriment. UBS did not disclose that Haixia was closely affiliated with UBS, including being controlled by its joint venture partner, State Development & Investment Corp. (\"SDIC\"). SDJC and UBS in June 2005 had formed China's first joint venture fund management company called UBS SDIC) which was owm:d 49% by UBS and 51 % by SD IC. lJ BS also concealed from Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade\n\n-5-\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-20 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 8 of 23\n\nthat Lu Bo, the principal point of contact between UBS and Haixia, was previously the Chief Financial Officer of UBS SDIC. Ace Decade relied on UBS's misrepresentations to its detriment, including by entrusting Ace Decade's Investment and negotiations with UBS to Haixia, which Ace Decade would not have done if Ace Decade had been aware of the true facts.\n\n23. In the absence ofUBS's false representations, Ace Decade would not have used an intennediary, would not have used Haixia, and would not have agreed to the terms of the Financing Letter entered into between UBS and Haixia.\n\n24. In November and December 2014, Mr. Kwok, UBS, and Haixia negotiated the terms of Ace Decade's investment in Haitong. UBS advised **Mr. Kwok** to structure the Investment so that Ace Decade would provide US \\$500 million to Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State''), a special purpose vehicle and wholly-owned subsidiary of Haixia Industrial Investment Fund (Fu Jian) Limited Partnership Co., a fund managed by Haixia.\n\n25. Moreover, although Mr. Kwok initially wanted to invest US \\$1 billion in the Shares without any financing, UBS advised him it would benefit Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade to invest only US \\$500 million and to obtain a substantial loan to be invested in the purchase of additional shares.\n\n26. UBS's cohort Haixia arranged for UBS's London Branch to finance the loan. Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade asked UBS whether Dawn State should approach other banks to finance the loan, but UBS represented to them that UBS would handle the financing on the most favorable terms. Because of their reliance on these representations, Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade did not pressure Haixia to seek financing opportunities through other banks.\n\n-6-\n\n**Had Made to Mr. Kwok.**\n\nIII. **Haixia Negotiated** a **Loan Financing Agreement With UBS That Contained Terms That Were Favorable** to **UBS and Directly** at **Odds With the Representations UBS**\n\n23\n\n27. On December 18, 2014, Ace Decade entered into a Co-Investment Agreement (\"Co~Investment Agreement\") with Haixiaand Dawn State and a letter agreement (\"Letter Agreemenf') with Haixia.\n\n28. Pursuant to the Co-Investment Agreement, Ace Decade would provide Dawn State with US \\$500 million, which together with US \\$775 million in loan financing that Dawn State was to obtain from UBS, would be used to purchase the Shares. UBS represented to **Mr. Kwok** and Ace Decade that it was desirable not to have to disclose Ace Decade's ownership of the Shares, that Ace Decade's beneficial ownership of the Shares would not have to be disclosed if Ace Decade had no management or voting rights with respect to Dawn State, and that for this reason, UBS recommended that Ace Decade have no management or voting rights with respect to Dawn State or any Shares purchased by Dawn State. UBS's representation was knowingly false, including in that UBS planned and intended that Ace Decade surrender its right to control its investment so that UBS would be able to structure its deal with Haixia and Dawn State in UBS's interest.\n\n29. In return for allowing Ace Decade to use its name for the Invesbnent, Haixia would receive a fee equal to the higher of (a) 0.65% of the total amount invested by Dawn State and (b) US \\$5 million, as well as a 0.1 % annual management fee on the total amount of Dawn State investments.\n\n30. Because, as Haixia and UBS knew, Mr. Kwok's ultimate motive in making the Investment was to utilize the Shares in a subsequent transaction, Haixia agreed in the Letter Agreement to transfer (for no additional consideration) 100% of Dawn State to Ace Decade at any time after 2 months following completion of Dawn State's purchase of the Shares.\n\n-7-\n\n31. On December 19, 2014, Dawn State entered into a subscription agreement with Haitong (the \"Subscription Agreement\") to purchase 569,427,620 Shares at a share price of HK \\$15.62. Completion of this sale was conditioned on shareholder and regulatory approvals.\n\n23\n\n32. During discussions about the loan financing, Mr. Kwok told **Mr.** Wong that Ace Decade would not enter into the Investment unless the margin call provisions did not include any triggers based on the short term price fluctuation of the Shares and provided Ace Decade with adequate time to meet any margin calls (for example, five business days to pay the first 25%, 10 business days to pay the second 25%, and 20 business days to pay the remaining 50%). Mr. Wong represented to Mr. Kwok that a Financing Letter would be consistent with Mr. Kwok's requirements and further that UBS would work cooperatively with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls. To reassure Mr. Kwok that his representations were true, Mr. Wong told Mr. Kwok that UBS provided loan financing to a large shareholder of H-shares of Ping An Insurance (Group) Co., and that shareholder's loan was substantially larger than Ace Decade's, but that UBS had never sold off any of the shares owned by that shareholder as a result of a margin call being triggered.\n\n33. The final Financing Letter between Haixia and UBS was executed on December 19, 2014. Be.cause ofUBS's advice, neither Ace Decade nor Mr. Kwok were parties to the Financing Letter. Instead, only Dawn State-the special purpose entity owned and controlled by Haixia, which was itself controlled by UBS's joint venture partner-was a party to the Financing Letter.\n\n34. UBS concealed from Ace Decade that Haixia, the intermediary through which Ace Decade would be making the Investment, was inextricably tied to UBS, and this conflict of interest warped Haixia's objectivity and incentivized it to agree to terms in the Financing Letter\n\n-8-\n\nthat would favor UBS and were directly at odds with the terms that Mr. Kwok had demanded and that UBS had represented it would accept.\n\n35. The margin call provisions in the final Financing Letter contained terms that UBS had represented to Mr. Kwok would not be included and that Mr. Kwok had said the inclusion of which would be a dealbreaker for Ace Decade's Investment. Specifically, the provisions gave UBS the right to demand, under certain circumstances, repayment of the entire loan, which together with penalties and a lucrative make-whole premium, would add up to close to US \\$1 billion, with 25% of the total due in less than 24 hours and the remaining 75% being due in the next two days.\n\n36. In early January 2015, Mr. Kwok and Ms. Yu moved to New York where they formed a company called Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring New York\") to seek U.S. investors interested in investing in Chinese companies. Golden Spring was incorporated in New York in February 2015 and is located at 767 Fifth Avenue, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10153.\n\n37. Ace Decade and Golden Spring New York entered into an agreement in February, pursuant to which Golden Spring New York would be responsible for managing Ace Decade's investments and seeking U.S. investors interested in investing in Haitong indirectly through Ace Decade.\n\n38. Mr. Kwok and Ms. Yu have conducted business for Ace Decade and Golden Spring New York out of their New York office since early January 2015.\n\n39. When Haitong was close to obtaining the necessary shareholder and regulatory approvals necessary to complete the sale, Haixia and UBS began to negotiate the final loan papers. Because UBS had previously represented to Mr. Kwok that the margin call provisions in\n\n-9-\n\nthe Financing Letter had been revised to reflect his comments, Mr. Kwok did not again directly discuss with UBS the margin call provisions in the final Facility Agreement and other associated collateral documents, which Dawn State and UBS entered into on April 1, 2015.\n\n40. The Facility Agreement provided up to **HK** \\$5,336,675,654.64 (approximately US \\$688.3 million) in loan financing to Dawn State for the purchase of the Shares to be secured by **the** Shares.\n\n41. Dawn State and UBS also simultaneously entered into a side letter agreement (the \"UBS Side Letter\") that provided that if the loans were prepaid, including as a result of a margin call, Dawn State would owe UBS a make-whole premium. The UBS Side Letter and Facility Agreement were signed on the same day, but the make-whole premium is referenced only in the UBS Side Letter.\n\n42. On May 8, 2015, Haitong announced that the conditions precedent to completing the issuance and sale of the new H-Shares had been met and that the closing was expected to occur on May 15, 2015. Additionally, per the tenns of the Subscription Agreement, because the trading price ofHaitong's H-Shares during the 30 trading days prior had surpassed a pre-agreed threshold, the subscription price would be increased by up to HK \\$1.56.\n\n43. As a result, Dawn State and UBS entered into an amendment to the Facility Agreement to reflect the increase in the per share price ofHaitong's H-Shares and thereby increasing UBS's loan to HK \\$6,011,236,393.92 (approximately US \\$775.4 million).\n\n44. On May 15, 2015, Dawn State completed Ace Decade's Investment.\n\n45. Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, Ace Decade could have demanded that Haixia transfer to it 100% of Dawn State at any time after July 15, 2015. However, in order to prevent\n\n-10-\n\n23\n\nrepresentations that the margin call provisions did not include a trigger for short tenn fluctuation limits or a prepayment by *5* pm on the following business day.\n\nUBS asked Haixia to confirm by 2 pm Hong Kong time whether the required repayment could be made that day so that UBS \"can assess the situation and work together on next steps.\"\n\n<sup>~</sup>11-\n\nAce Decade from gaining control of Dawn State, UBS liquidated all of Ace Decade's Haitong shares in Dawn State's name just days before Ace Decade could have exercised its right.\n\n### **IV. UBS Sold All 569,427,620 of Ace Decade's Shares Shortly After Giving Notice of the Margin Call.**\n\n46. In mid-June 2015, China's equities market experienced a sharp downturn and Haitong share prices began to fall along with other stocks in the H-share market.\n\n47. On July 6, 2015 at 5:22 pm Hong Kong time, Donghai Tan ofHaixia sent an email to Ace Decade's counsel Stevenson, Wong & Co. (\"Stevenson Wong\"), notifying them that the closing price of the Shares had triggered short tem1 :fluctuation limits and that UBS would be calling the loan. He informed them that 25% of the loan was due before 5 pm the next day. UBS 's margin call was based on the short term fluctuation limits and timing of prepayment provisions in the draft Financing Letter that Ace Decade had rejected and that UBS had represented would not be in the final Financing Letter.\n\n48. Later that day, at 8:45 pm Hong Kong time, UBS sent Haixia the mandatory prepayment notice, which Haixia forwarded to Stevenson Wong at 9:17 pm Hong Kong time.\n\nThe notice stated that approximately US \\$200 million needed to be paid by *5* pm the next day.\n\n49. Ace Decade, Mr. Kwok, and Ms. Yu learned about the margin call on the morning\n\n50. On the morning of July 7 Hong Kong time (evening on July 6 New York time),\n\nof US \\$200 million. This notification was a shock to them because they had relied upon UBS's\n\nof July 6 New York time and were told that they had less than 24 hours to arrange for the transfer\n\n51. Although Ace Decade was stunned by the margin call and the short time to make a prepayment, it made every effort to meet the call. At or prior to 2 pm Hong Kong time (2 am New York time), an employee of Mr. Kwok's informed UBS that Ace Decade could obtain the funds to meet the margin call quickly but that it could not do so by the 5 pm deadline that day.\n\n52. Mr. Wong knew that Ace Decade could make the mandatory prepayments and that Mr. Kwok was impervious to any fluctuations in the share price of Haitong because his ultimate objective in making the Investment was to enter into a subsequent swap transaction to exchange the Haitong shares for a controlling interest in shares of another company.\n\n53. However, contrary to UBS's representations to Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade prior to entering into the Investment, UBS never had any intention to work cooperatively with Ace Decade. By the time that Mr. Wong received the message that Ace Decade could meet the margin call, senior executives at UBS had already told Mr. Wong that UBS would not give Ace Decade any additional time to gather the funds. Mr. Wong told Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade that UBS had already identified buyers and that UBS would make substantial profits by selling the shares instead of working with Ace Decade to al1ow it to make the margin call.\n\n54. Indeed, UBS profited handsomely from its role in this transaction, receiving 1 % of the facility amount for arranging the loan financing, which amounted to US \\$7.5 million, and a facility amendment fee of **HK** \\$13,226,681.16 (approximately US \\$1.76 million) for a total of US \\$9.2 million in fees. UBS would also receive a \"make-whole\" fee of **HK** \\$231,967,848.24 (approximately US \\$29.9 mi11ion), corresponding to the full amount of the spread that would have been owed on the principal if the loan had not been repaid or prepaid, which gave UBS a substantial incentive to stringently enforce the one-sided margin call provisions.\n\n-12-\n\n55. Mr. Wong told Mr. Kwok that the decision to immediately execute the block sale and not cooperate with A<::e Decade was ordered by the top management of UBS, including UBS'sCEO.\n\n**V. UBS Executed Block Trades** to **Unwind the Haitong Shares** and **Sold** the **Shares** at a 20% **Discount.**\n\n56. UBS began to offer to sell the Shares on July 7 in the range of HK \\$ I l. 12- HK\\$12.00 per share.\n\n57. Haitong suspended its trading on the HKSE on July 8, and on July 9 announced a S3 .5 billion stock buyback, saying that it would purchase shares at as much as HK \\$17.18.\n\n58. Instead of selling only the shares sufficient to cover the \\$200 million payment that UBS demanded to be prepaid on July 8, UBS sold all 569,427,620 shares belonging to Ace Decade at HK \\$11.12, a 20% discount off the HK \\$13.90 closing price of Haitong stock on July 7, and a 35% discount off the price at which Haitong had offered to purchase back its shares.\n\n59. UBS sold 58,284,114 shares of Haitong stock to itself.\n\n60. UBS also sold 200,000,000 shares of Haitong stock to Segantii Capital Management Limited (\"Segantii\"), a fund management company that has close ties. to UBS. In fact, prior to introducing Haixia to Ace Decade, UBS had recommended that Ace Decade use Segantii as the intermediary entity through which to make its Investment.\n\n61. Haitong H-shares resumed trading on July 9 and closed at HK \\$13.82, a 0.6% drop from its closing price on July 7 and 24.3% higher than the price at which UBS sold the Shares.\n\n62. The next day, Haitong shares closed at HK \\$15.18, a 10% gain from the closing price the day before and 37% higher than the price at which UBS sold the Shares.\n\n-13-\n\n63. Several news agencies reported on the block sale and queried why the sale was done so urgently and at such a discount. Bloomberg reported that \"As China fund loses \\$445 million on Haitong, UBS is a Winner.\" Reuters reported that \"Hong Kong block dea1s are normally done at a 6-8 percent discount\" and \"it was not immediately known what prompted Haixia to launch the sale at *unusually* large discount\" ( emphasis· added).\n\n64. Less than two weeks after UBS had sold the Haitong shares at HK \\$11.12, UBS's own analysts reaffirmed their 12-month buy rating on Haitong at its then current price of HK \\$15.34 and set a target price of HK \\$30, 170% higher than the price at which UBS sold the shares.\n\n#### **VI. As** a **Result of UBS's Actions, Ace Decade Lost Its More Than \\$495 of Its** \\$500 **Million Investment.**\n\n65. As a result ofUBS's block discounted sale of the Haitong shares, UBS recouped only HK \\$6,325,703,099.27 (approximately US \\$816.2 millioD) out of a total investment of US \\$1.25 billion.\n\n66. UBS returned to Dawn State HK\\$36,621,693.83 (approximately US \\$4.7 million) after deducting the following from the amount it recouped from the block sale:\n\n(1) HK \\$6,011,236,393.92 (approximately US \\$775.6 million) for the principal amount outstanding of the loan; (2) HK \\$44,003,279.72 (approximately US \\$5.7 million) for interest accrued up to the date of the mandatory prepayment notice; (3) **HK** \\$1,873,883.54 (approximately US \\$241.8 thousand) for break costs, and (4) HK \\$231,967,848.24\n\n(approximately US \\$29.9 million) for the make-whole premium.\n\n67. Thus, as a result ofUBS's actions, Ace Decade lost approximately US \\$495.3 million of its initial US \\$500 million investment.\n\n-14-\n\n#### **CLAIMS FOR REL] EF**\n\n#### **FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Fraud)**\n\n68. Ace Decade incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in **,r,r** 1-67, as though fully set forth herein.\n\n69. UBS made intentional material misrepresentations of fact and omissions in advising Ace Decade to enter into the Investment. Among other things, UBS misrepresented that the Financing Letter would not include margin call triggers based on short term price fluctuations and would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin ca11s, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet margin calls.\n\n70. UBS also represented that Haixia was the best independent intermediary to protect Ace Decade's interests, but concealed from Ace Decade that Haixia was controlled by UBS 's joint venture partner. Subsequently Haixia and UBS entered into loan financing agreements that contained one-sided tenns that were favorable to UBS and detrimental to Ace Decade. Ace Decade relied on UBS's false and misleading representations to its detriment, including in entering into its agreement with Haixia.\n\n71. Ace Decade did not have access to the information that UBS, the placement agent for the Shares and the lender for Ace Decade's Investment, had, and Ace Decade was not aware of the conflict of interest between UBS and Haixia.\n\n72. UBS knew that its representations and omissions were false and misleading and made them with the intent and expectation that Ace Decade would rely on them.\n\n73. Ace Decade reasonably relied on UBS's misrepresentations and omissions, without which Ace Decade would not have agreed to invest in the Shares through Haixia.\n\n-15-\n\n74. Ace Decade has suffered injury as a direct and proximate result ofUBS's conduct, including but not limited to monetary damage. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, UBS is liable to Ace Decade and Ace Decade is entitled to relief.\n\n#### **SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Fraud)**\n\n23\n\n75. Ace Decade incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in **fl** 1-67, as though fully set forth herein.\n\n76. UBS made intentional material misrepresentations of fact and omissions in advising Ace Decade to enter into the Investment. Among other things, UBS misrepresented that the Financing Letter would not include margin call triggers based on short term price fluctuations and would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet margin calls.\n\n77. UBS also represented that Haixia was the best independent intennediary to protect Ace Decade's interests, but concealed from Ace Decade that Haixia was controlled by UBS's joint venture partner. Subl\\$equently Haixia and UBS entered into loan financing agreements that contained one-sided terms that were favorable to UBS and detrimental to Ace Decade. Ace Decade relied on UBS's false and misleading representations to its detriment, including in entering into its agreement with Haixia.\n\n78. Ace Decade did not have access to the information that UBS, the placement agent for the Shares and the lender for Ace Decade's Investment, had, and Ace Decade was not aware of the conflict of interest between UBS and Haixia.\n\n79. UBS acted as an advisor to Ace Decade with respect to its Investment and advised Ace Decade, among other things, to structure the transaction so that its Investment would be\n\n-16-\n\nmade through Haixia and to obtain financing for a significant part of the Investment. As such, UBS formed a close fiduciary relationship with Ace Decade.\n\n80. Ace Decade reasonably relied on UBS' s misrepresentations and omissions, without which Ace Decade would not have agre.ed to invest in the Shares through Haixia.\n\n81. Ace Decade has suffered injury as a direct and proximate result ofUBS's conduct, including but not limited to monetary damage. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, UBS is liable to Ace Decade and Ace Decade is entitled to relief.\n\n#### **THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)**\n\n82. Ace Decade incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in **,if** 1-67, as though fully set forth herein.\n\n83. Ace Decade relied on UBS to act as its fiduciary and to advise it with respect to its Investment in the Shares.\n\n84. UBS acted as an advisor to Ace Decade with respect to its Investment and advised Ace Decade, among other things, to structure the transaction so that its Investment would be made through Haixia so as to circumvent disclosure requirements and to obtain :financing for a significant part of the Investment. As such, UBS formed a close fiduciary relationship with Ace Decade.\n\n85. UBS held itself out to Ace Decade as knowledgeable and experienced in advising investors such as Ace Decade with respect to investments in Placements such as this one. As a result, Ace Decade placed its trust and confidence in UBS and followed UBS's advice in structuring its Investment and obtaining a loan from UBS.\n\n86. During the course of the relationship, UBS abused the trust that Ace Decade had placed in UBS by making intentional material misrepresentations of fact and omissions in\n\n-17-\n\nadvising Ace Decade to enter into the Investment. Among other things, UBS misrepresented that the Financing Letter would not include margin call triggers base.d on short term price fluctuations and would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet margin calls.\n\n87. UBS also represented that Haixia was the best independent intermediary to protect Ace Decade's interests, but concealed from Ace Decade that Haixia was controlled by UBS's joint venture partner. Subsequently Haixia and UBS entered into loan financing agreements that contained one-sided terms that were favorable to UBS and detrimental to Ace Decade. Ace Decade relied on UBS's false and misleading representations to its detriment, including in entering into its agreement with Haixia.\n\n88. Ace Decade did not have access to the information that UBS, the placement agent for the Shares and the lender for Ace Decade's Investment, had, and Ace Decade was not aware of the conflict of interest between UBS and Haixia.\n\n89. Ace Decade has suffered injury as a direct and proximate result ofUBS's conduct, including but not limited to monetary damage. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, UBS is liable to Ace Decade and Ace Decade is entitled to relief.\n\n#### **FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation)**\n\n90. Ace Decade incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in **fl** 1-67, as though fully set forth herein.\n\n91. UBS made material misrepresentations of fact and omissions in advising Ace Decade to enter into the Investment that it was negligent in failing to know were false. Among other things, UBS misrepresented that the Financing Letter would not include margin call triggers based on short term price fluctuations and would give Ace Decade adequate time to\n\n-18-\n\nmeet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet margin calls.\n\n23\n\n92. UBS also was negligent in representing that Haixia was the best independent intermediary to protect Ace Decade's interests, but concealed from Ace Decade that Haixia was controlled by UBS 's joint venture partner. Subsequently Hai:xia and UBS entered into loan financing. agreements that contained one-sided terms that were favorable to UBS and detrimental to.Ace Decade. Ace Decade relied on UBS's false and misleading representations to its detriment, including in entering into its agreement with Haixia.\n\n93. UBS had a duty of disclosure to Ace Decade. UBS acted as an advisor to Ace Decade with respect to its Investment and advised Ace Decade, among other things, to structure the transaction so that its Investment would be made through Haixia and to obtain financing for a significant part of the Investment. As such, UBS formed a close fiduciary relationship with Ace Decade.\n\n94; Ace Decade did not have access to the information that UBS, the placement agent for the Shares and the lender for Ace Decade's Investment, bad, and Ace Decade was not aware of the conflict of interest between UBS and Haixia.\n\n95. Ace Decade reasonably relied on UBS's misrepresentations and omissions, without which Ace Decade would not have agreed to invest in the Shares through Haixia.\n\n96. UBS was aware that Art Decade would rely upon its advice and statements regarding the Investment.\n\n97. Ace Decade has suffered injury as a direct and proximate result of UBS's conduct, including but not limited to monetary damage. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, UBS is liable to Ace Decade and Ace Decade is entitled to relief.\n\n-19-\n\n#### 23\n\n#### **FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment)**\n\n98. Ace Decade incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in **fl** 1-67, as though fully set forth **herein.**\n\n99. UBS has been enriched at the **expense** of Ace Decade through: (a) earning US \\$9 .2 million in fees for its advisory services; {b) earning US \\$29 .9 million from the make-whole premiwn fee; and {c) selling to itself a large block of Shares at a highly-discounted price.\n\n100. UBS unjustly retained these ill-gotten gains at Ace Decade's expense.\n\n101. Because UBS received and unjustly retained at Ace Decade's expense such monetary benefits, UBS is liable to Ace Decade and Ace Decade is entitled to relief.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n102. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ace Decade demands judgment in its favor against Defendant UBS as follows:\n\nA. Awarding damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, for the\n\ndamages it sustained as a result ofUBS's block sale of the Shares;\n\nB. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, together with any and all further costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees· and expert fees;\n\nC. Granting such other relief, including equitable and injunctive relief, as this Court may deem just and proper.\n\n-20-\n\n23\n\nDated: New York, NY October 5, 2015\n\n#### BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP\n\nBy: avid Boies\n\n333 Main Street Annonk, NY 10504 Tel: (914) 749-8200 Fax: (914) 749-8300 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com\n\nQian A. Gao 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 446-2300 Fax: (212) 446-2350 Email: qgao@bsfllp.com\n\n*Attorneys for Plaint(ff Ace Decade Holdings Limited*","body_zh":"证物 PAX 20\n\n起诉状，Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团），案号 653316/2015（纽约州最高法院），日期为 October 5, 2015\n[已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/2015 02:44 Pij  NYSCEF 文件编号 1 案号 653316/2015 NYSCEF 收件日期：10/05/2015 案件 22-50073 文件 250-20 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 2 页，共 23 页\n纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约县\n\nAce Decade Holdings Limited\n\n案号\n\n原告，\n\n被告。\n\n—诉—\n\n传票\n\nUBS AG\n\n购买案号日期：October 5, 2015\n\n致上述具名被告\n\nUBS AG 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019\n\n兹传唤你方对本案起诉状作出答辩，并于本传票送达后二十日内向原告代理律师送达答辩状副本；或者，如本传票未随附起诉状送达，则送达出庭通知（不包括送达当日；或者，如本传票未在纽约州境内亲自送达给你方，则于送达完成后三十日内）；如你方未出庭或答辩，将就起诉状所请求的救济对你方作出缺席判决。\n\n审判地的依据为 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 503，因原告的主要营业地位于纽约市，且双方当事人均居住于纽约县，故该审判地适当。\n\n日期：New York, New York\n\nOctober 5, 2015\n\n原告 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的代理律师 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED，\n\n原告，\n\n被告。\n\n案号 -------\n\n—诉—\n\nUBS AG，\n\n起诉状\n\n请求陪审团审判\n\n原告 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（“Ace Decade”）通过其下列签署的代理律师，就其针对 UBS AG（“UBS”）的起诉状，就其自身及在其在场时发生的自身行为，依其所知提出陈述；就所有其他事项，依其获得的信息及信念提出陈述如下；\n本案性质\n\n1. 本案因 UBS 建议 Ace Decade 通过中介实体 Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.（海峡汇富资产投资及基金管理有限公司，“Haixia”）投资 US $500 million 购买某公司的股份，以及 UBS 对 Ace Decade 作出的相关失实陈述和欺骗行为而引起。\n\n2. UBS 向 Ace Decade 推荐 Haixia，称其为将追求 Ace Decade 最佳利益的合格、独立实体，同时隐瞒了 UBS 所知的事实，即该中介机构受 UBS 的合资伙伴控制，并出于 UBS 的利益而非 Ace Decade 的利益行事。\n\n3. 根据 UBS 的建议，Ace Decade 投入的自有资金少于其原计划投资的金额，并向 UBS 借入 US $775 million，为购买额外股份提供资金。就该笔贷款，UBS 除利息外还向 Ace Decade 收取了 $40 million 的费用。\n\n4. 按照 UBS 的计划，Haixia 安排 UBS 为该贷款提供融资，并与 UBS 协商达成了一份对 UBS 单方面有利的融资承诺函（“融资函”），其条款对 UBS 极为有利，包括某些追加保证金通知条款；该等条款比 UBS 向 Ace Decade 表示最终融资函中将包含的追加保证金通知条款对 UBS 更为有利，并且对 Haixia（从而对 Ace Decade）负担更重。\n\n5. UBS 先前曾告知 Ace Decade，任何最终融资函中的追加保证金通知条款将给予 Ace Decade 充足的时间应对任何追加保证金通知，并进一步告知 UBS 将在发生任何追加保证金通知时与 Ace Decade 合作处理。\n\n6. In July 2015，由于股票市场波动，融资函中规定的追加保证金通知触发条件已达到，UBS 就该贷款发出追加保证金通知，并给予 Haixia（从而给予 Ace Decade）不足 24 小时的时间预付 $200 million。\n\n7. Ace Decade 在截止期限前数小时告知 UBS，其能够满足追加保证金通知，但需要稍多一些时间。然而，UBS 告知 Ace Decade，其已经开始出售 Ace Decade 的股份——其中 10% 以 20% 的折价出售给 UBS 自身。UBS 如此行事，是因为该出售将使 UBS 获得其若允许 Ace Decade 满足追加保证金通知则无法获得的可观利润，包括贷款提前还款的 $29 million 费用。\n\n8. 由于 UBS 的行为，Ace Decade 损失了其 $500 million 的投资。9. 本案寻求就 UBS 行为造成的损害获得赔偿，及/或追缴 UBS 的不当得利。\n\n-2-\n当事人\n\n10. 原告 Ace Decade 是一家在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的有限责任投资控股机构。Ace Decade 的主要营业地位于纽约市。\n\n11. 被告 UBS 是一家瑞士银行和金融服务公司。如 UBS 在其网站上所述，UBS 的“全球主要办事处”之一位于 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n12. 本院根据 N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 301 和 302 对本案具有管辖权，因为 UBS 在纽约进行了导致本案请求权产生的商业活动，且 UBS 在州内和州外实施了致使 Ace Decade 在纽约遭受损害的侵权行为。具体而言，本案在很大程度上源于 UBS 在纽约向 Ace Decade 作出的陈述，以及 Ace Decade 在纽约达成的协议。此外，UBS（1）经常从事或招揽商业活动，持续实施行为，并从在纽约提供的服务中获得可观收入；以及（2）预期或理应合理预期其行为将在本州产生后果，并从国际商业中获得可观收入，因为 UBS 的全球主要办事处之一设于纽约，且 UBS 在纽约开展其业务的重要部分。\n\n13. 根据 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 503，本院为适当审判地，因为双方当事人均居住于纽约县。\n事实主张\nI. 背景\n\n14. In or around May 2014，UBS 开始与 Ace Decade 及 Ace Decade 的代理人 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）讨论一项投资机会（“投资”），即即将进行的 Haitong Securities Co., Ltd.（海通证券股份有限公司，“Haitong”）H 股（“股份”）配售（“配售”）。\n\n-3-\n\n15. H 股是指在中华人民共和国（“PRC”或“中国大陆”）注册成立并在 Hong Kong Stock Exchange（香港证券交易所，“HKSE”）上市的公司的股份。H 股受中国法律监管，但以港元计价。\n\n16. Haitong 是一家在 PRC 注册成立的股份有限公司，是一家提供全方位服务的证券公司。按总资产、净资产和总收入计，Haitong 是 PRC 最大的证券公司之一。Haitong 的股份自 July 2007 起在 Shanghai Stock Exchange（上海证券交易所）上市，其 H 股自 April 2012 起在 HKSE 上市。Haitong 在 HKSE 的市值约为 HK $46.2 billion（约 US $6 billion），在 Shanghai Stock Exchange 的市值为 RMB 178.8 billion（约 US $27.9 billion）。\n\n17. UBS 是该股份配售的联席全球协调人和联席配售代理人之一。\n\n18. UBS 向 Ace Decade 宣称，其在就此类配售中的投资向 Ace Decade 等投资者提供建议方面具备知识和经验。\n\n19. 因此，Ace Decade 同意由 UBS 就该投资担任其顾问，包括就如何以最佳方式进行该投资提供建议，其中包括用于购买股份的实体以及为该投资融资的方式。因此，Ace Decade 依赖 UBS 履行其受托人义务，并就其股份投资向其提供建议。\n\n20. UBS 的董事总经理 Steven Wong（史蒂文·王）担任与 Kwok 先生的主要联络人。除其他事项外，Kwok 先生告知 Wong 先生：（1）其计划投资约 US $1,000,000,000；（2）其计划通过 Ace Decade 进行该投资，Ace Decade 是一个由其雇员 Yu Yong（俞勇）女士管理的特殊目的实体；以及（3）该投资的最终目的是使 Kwok 先生能够与中国大陆的其他投资者进行后续交易，在该交易中，他们将以所购股份交换另一家公司股份的控股权益。\n\n-4-\n\nII. UBS 建议 Kwok 先生通过一家受 UBS 合资伙伴控制的中介机构进行投资，却未披露该利益冲突。\n\n21. UBS 建议 Kwok 先生不要通过 Ace Decade 直接购买股份。相反，UBS 告知 Kwok 先生，由于其计划的投资超过 Haitong 已发行 H 股的 5%，如 Kwok 先生通过 Ace Decade 直接投资，适用的信息披露要求将要求提交若干文件。UBS 进一步告知 Kwok 先生，如 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 通过一家中介实体进行投资，由 Ace Decade 成为股份的实益所有人、但由中介实体持有股份的法定所有权，则无需作出该等披露。\n\n22. UBS 最终建议 Kwok 先生选择 Haixia 作为中介机构。UBS 向 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 陈述，UBS 推荐 Haixia 是因为 Haixia 最有资格代表 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 行事，且 Haixia 独立于 UBS，并将保护 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 的利益。UBS 意图使 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 依赖 UBS 的该等陈述。该等陈述系明知虚假，而 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 依赖该等陈述，致使其利益受损。UBS 未披露 Haixia 与 UBS 存在密切关联，包括其受 UBS 的合资伙伴 State Development & Investment Corp.（国家开发投资集团有限公司，“SDIC”）控制。SDIC 与 UBS 于 June 2005 成立了中国第一家合资基金管理公司 UBS SDIC，该公司由 UBS 持有 49%，由 SDIC 持有 51%。UBS 还向 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 隐瞒了以下事实：\n\n-5-\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-20 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 8 页，共 23 页\n\n即 UBS 与 Haixia 之间的主要联络人 Lu Bo（卢波）此前曾任 UBS SDIC 的首席财务官。Ace Decade 依赖 UBS 的失实陈述，致使其利益受损，包括将 Ace Decade 的投资及与 UBS 的谈判托付给 Haixia；如 Ace Decade 知悉真实事实，其本不会如此行事。\n\n23. 如无 UBS 的虚假陈述，Ace Decade 不会使用中介机构，不会使用 Haixia，也不会同意 UBS 与 Haixia 之间达成的融资函条款。\n\n24. In November and December 2014，Kwok 先生、UBS 和 Haixia 就 Ace Decade 对 Haitong 的投资条款进行了谈判。UBS 建议 Kwok 先生将该投资安排为由 Ace Decade 向 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司，“Dawn State”）提供 US $500 million；Dawn State 是 Haixia 管理的基金 Haixia Industrial Investment Fund (Fu Jian) Limited Partnership Co.（海峡产业投资基金（福建）有限合伙企业）的特殊目的载体及全资子公司。\n\n25. 此外，尽管 Kwok 先生最初希望不进行任何融资而投资 US $1 billion 购买股份，UBS 仍建议其仅投资 US $500 million 并取得一笔可观贷款，用于购买额外股份，将有利于 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade。\n\n26. UBS 的同伙 Haixia 安排 UBS 的 London Branch（伦敦分行）为该贷款提供融资。Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 曾询问 UBS，Dawn State 是否应接洽其他银行为该贷款融资，但 UBS 向其表示，UBS 将以最优惠的条款处理融资事宜。由于依赖该等陈述，Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 没有敦促 Haixia 通过其他银行寻求融资机会。\n\n-6-\n\n曾向 Kwok 先生作出。\n\nIII. Haixia（海峡）与UBS（瑞银）谈判达成了一项贷款融资协议，其中包含有利于瑞银且与瑞银所作陈述直接相悖的条款\n\n27. 2014年12月18日，Ace Decade（艾斯德凯德）与Haixia和Dawn State（曙光州）签订了一份共同投资协议（“共同投资协议”），并与Haixia签订了一份函件协议（“函件协议”）。\n\n28. 根据共同投资协议，Ace Decade将向Dawn State提供US \\$500 million，该款项连同Dawn State拟从UBS获得的US \\$775 million贷款融资，将用于购买该等股份。UBS向Kwok先生（郭文贵）及Ace Decade表示，不必披露Ace Decade对该等股份的所有权是可取的；如果Ace Decade对Dawn State不享有管理权或表决权，则无需披露Ace Decade对该等股份的受益所有权；因此，UBS建议Ace Decade对Dawn State或Dawn State购买的任何股份均不享有管理权或表决权。UBS的陈述明知为虚假，其中包括UBS计划并意图让Ace Decade放弃控制其投资的权利，以便UBS能够按照其自身利益安排其与Haixia及Dawn State的交易。\n\n29. 作为允许Ace Decade以其名义进行该项投资的回报，Haixia将获得以下两者中较高者作为费用：（a）Dawn State投资总额的0.65%；及（b）US \\$5 million；此外，Haixia还将就Dawn State投资总额收取0.1%的年度管理费。\n\n30. 由于Haixia和UBS均知悉，Kwok先生进行该项投资的最终动机是在后续交易中使用该等股份，Haixia在函件协议中同意，在Dawn State完成购买该等股份后满2个月的任何时间，将Dawn State的100%权益转让给Ace Decade（无需额外对价）。\n\n31. 2014年12月19日，Dawn State与Haitong（海通）签订了一份认购协议（“认购协议”），以每股HK \\$15.62的价格购买569,427,620股股份。该项出售的完成以获得股东及监管批准为条件。\n\n32. 在就贷款融资进行讨论期间，Kwok先生告诉Wong先生（Wong先生），除非追加保证金通知条款不包含任何基于该等股份短期价格波动的触发条件，并给予Ace Decade充足时间应对任何追加保证金通知（例如，五个营业日支付首个25%，10个营业日支付第二个25%，20个营业日支付剩余50%），否则Ace Decade不会进行该项投资。Wong先生向Kwok先生表示，融资函将符合Kwok先生的要求，并进一步表示，UBS将与Ace Decade合作，使其能够应对任何追加保证金通知。为使Kwok先生相信其陈述属实，Wong先生告诉Kwok先生，UBS曾向Ping An Insurance (Group) Co.（平安保险（集团）公司）H股的一名大股东提供贷款融资，该股东的贷款金额远高于Ace Decade的贷款金额，但UBS从未因触发追加保证金通知而出售该股东持有的任何股份。\n\n33. Haixia与UBS之间的最终融资函于2014年12月19日签署。由于UBS的建议，Ace Decade和Kwok先生均不是融资函的当事方。相反，只有Dawn State——由Haixia拥有及控制、而Haixia本身又受UBS合资伙伴控制的特殊目的实体——是融资函的当事方。\n\n34. UBS向Ace Decade隐瞒了以下事实：Haixia，即Ace Decade将通过其进行该项投资的中介方，与UBS密不可分地关联在一起；该利益冲突扭曲了Haixia的客观性，并激励其同意融资函中有利于UBS且与Kwok先生所要求、以及UBS表示将接受的条款直接相悖的条款。\n\n35. 最终融资函中的追加保证金通知条款包含UBS曾向Kwok先生表示不会纳入、且Kwok先生曾称一旦纳入将导致Ace Decade无法进行该项投资的条款。具体而言，该等条款赋予UBS在某些情形下要求偿还全部贷款的权利；该等款项连同罚金及一项丰厚的全额补偿溢价，合计接近US \\$1 billion，其中总额的25%须在不足24小时内到期支付，剩余75%须在随后两日内到期支付。\n\n36. 2015年1月初，Kwok先生和Yu女士（Yu女士）迁居纽约，并在当地成立了一家名为Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）的公司（“Golden Spring New York”），以寻找有兴趣投资中国公司的美国投资者。Golden Spring于2015年2月在纽约注册成立，地址位于767 Fifth Avenue, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10153。\n\n37. Ace Decade与Golden Spring New York于2月签订了一项协议，根据该协议，Golden Spring New York将负责管理Ace Decade的投资，并寻找有兴趣通过Ace Decade间接投资海通的美国投资者。\n\n38. 自2015年1月初以来，Kwok先生和Yu女士一直在其纽约办公室为Ace Decade和Golden Spring New York开展业务。\n\n39. 当海通接近获得完成该项出售所需的股东及监管批准时，Haixia和UBS开始谈判最终贷款文件。由于UBS此前曾向Kwok先生表示，融资函中的追加保证金通知条款已被修改以反映其意见，Kwok先生未再直接与UBS讨论最终融资协议及其他相关担保文件中的追加保证金通知条款；Dawn State和UBS于2015年4月1日签订了该等文件。\n\n40. 融资协议为Dawn State购买该等股份提供最高HK \\$5,336,675,654.64（approximately US \\$688.3 million）的贷款融资，并以该等股份作担保。\n\n41. Dawn State和UBS还同时签订了一份附函协议（“UBS附函”），规定若贷款被提前偿还，包括因追加保证金通知而提前偿还，Dawn State将欠付UBS一项全额补偿溢价。UBS附函和融资协议于同日签署，但全额补偿溢价仅在UBS附函中被提及。\n\n42. 2015年5月8日，海通宣布，完成新H股发行和出售的先决条件已获满足，交割预计将于2015年5月15日进行。此外，根据认购协议的条款，由于海通H股在此前30个交易日内的交易价格超过预先约定的门槛，认购价格将最多上调HK \\$1.56。\n\n43. 因此，Dawn State和UBS签订了对融资协议的修订，以反映海通H股每股价格的上涨，从而将UBS的贷款提高至HK \\$6,011,236,393.92（approximately US \\$775.4 million）。\n\n44. 2015年5月15日，Dawn State完成了Ace Decade的投资。\n\n45. 根据函件协议，Ace Decade本可在2015年7月15日之后的任何时间要求Haixia将Dawn State的100%权益转让给其。然而，为防止Ace Decade取得对Dawn State的控制权，UBS在Ace Decade能够行使其权利前数日，以Dawn State名义清算了Ace Decade持有的全部海通股份。\n\nIV. UBS在发出追加保证金通知后不久出售了Ace Decade的全部569,427,620股股份。\n\n46. 2015年6月中旬，中国股票市场经历急剧下跌，海通股价与H股市场的其他股票一道开始下跌。\n\n47. 2015年7月6日下午5:22（香港时间），Haixia的Donghai Tan（谭东海）向Ace Decade的律师Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、Wong律师事务所）（“Stevenson Wong”）发送电子邮件，通知其该等股份的收盘价已触发短期波动限制，UBS将要求偿还贷款。他告知对方，贷款的25%须于次日下午5点前到期支付。UBS的追加保证金通知是基于Ace Decade曾拒绝、且UBS曾表示不会出现在最终融资函中的融资函草案所载短期波动限制和提前还款期限条款。\n\n48. 当日稍后，于晚上8:45（香港时间），UBS向Haixia发出强制提前还款通知，Haixia于晚上9:17（香港时间）将该通知转发给Stevenson Wong。\n\n该通知称，约US \\$200 million须于次日下午5点前支付。\n\n49. Ace Decade、Kwok先生和Yu女士于7月6日纽约时间上午得知追加保证金通知，并被告知他们不足24小时安排转移US \\$200 million。\n\n50. 7月7日上午（香港时间）（即7月6日晚上纽约时间），UBS要求Haixia在香港时间下午2点前确认是否能在当日完成所需还款，以便UBS“能够评估情况并共同研究下一步措施。”该通知令他们震惊，因为他们依赖UBS所作陈述，即追加保证金通知条款不包括短期波动限制触发条件，亦不要求在下一营业日下午5点前提前还款。\n\n51. 尽管Ace Decade对追加保证金通知及短暂的提前还款期限感到震惊，其仍尽一切努力应对此次通知。在香港时间下午2点前或当时（纽约时间凌晨2点），Kwok先生的一名雇员告知UBS，Ace Decade能够迅速获得应对追加保证金通知的资金，但无法在当日下午5点的截止期限前取得该资金。\n\n52. Wong先生知道Ace Decade能够完成强制提前还款，并且Kwok先生不会受海通股价任何波动的影响，因为他进行该项投资的最终目标是进行后续掉期交易，以海通股份换取另一家公司股份的控股权益。\n\n53. 然而，与UBS在进行该项投资前向Kwok先生和Ace Decade所作陈述相反，UBS从未打算与Ace Decade合作。在Wong先生收到Ace Decade能够应对追加保证金通知的信息时，UBS高级管理人员已告知Wong先生，UBS不会给予Ace Decade任何额外时间筹集资金。Wong先生告诉Kwok先生和Ace Decade，UBS已确定买方，且UBS通过出售股份将获得巨额利润，而不是与Ace Decade合作以允许其应对追加保证金通知。\n\n54. 事实上，UBS从其在该交易中的角色获得丰厚利润：其因安排贷款融资而收取融资额度的1%，即US \\$7.5 million；并收取HK \\$13,226,681.16（approximately US \\$1.76 million）的融资协议修订费，费用总额为US \\$9.2 million。UBS还将获得HK \\$231,967,848.24（approximately US \\$29.9 million）的“全额补偿”费用，相当于若贷款未被偿还或提前偿还则本金本应欠付的全部利差金额，这使UBS有重大动机严格执行单方面的追加保证金通知条款。\n\n55. Wong先生告诉Kwok先生，立即执行大宗出售且不与Ace Decade合作的决定，是由UBS最高管理层，包括UBS的首席执行官下令作出的。\n\nV. UBS通过执行大宗交易解除海通股份头寸，并以20%的折扣出售该等股份。\n\n56. UBS于7月7日开始按每股HK \\$11.12至HK \\$12.00的价格范围要约出售该等股份。\n\n57. 海通于7月8日在HKSE暂停交易，并于7月9日宣布一项S3.5 billion股票回购计划，称其将以最高每股HK \\$17.18的价格购买股份。\n\n58. UBS（瑞银）并未仅出售足以覆盖UBS要求于July 8预付的\\$200 million款项的股份，而是以每股HK \\$11.12的价格出售了属于Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的全部569,427,620股股份；该价格较Haitong（海通）股票于July 7的HK \\$13.90收盘价低20%，亦较海通提出回购其股份的价格低35%。\n\n59. UBS向其自身出售了58,284,114股海通股票。\n\n60. UBS还向Segantii Capital Management Limited（Segantii资本管理有限公司，以下简称“Segantii”）出售了200,000,000股海通股票；Segantii是一家与UBS关系密切的基金管理公司。事实上，在向Ace Decade介绍Haixia（海峡）之前，UBS曾建议Ace Decade使用Segantii作为其进行该项投资的中介实体。\n\n61. 海通H股于July 9恢复交易，并以HK \\$13.82收盘，较其July 7的收盘价下跌0.6%，但较UBS出售该等股份的价格高24.3%。\n\n62. 次日，海通股份以HK \\$15.18收盘，较前一日收盘价上涨10%，并较UBS出售该等股份的价格高37%。\n\n-13-\n\n63. 多家新闻机构报道了该大宗出售，并质疑为何该出售如此紧急且折价如此之大。Bloomberg（彭博社）报道称：“随着中国基金在海通上损失\\$445 million，UBS成为赢家。”Reuters（路透社）报道称：“香港大宗交易通常以6-8 percent的折价完成”，且“尚不清楚是什么促使Haixia以异常大的折价启动出售”（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n64. 在UBS以HK \\$11.12出售海通股份后不到两周，UBS自己的分析师即在海通当时HK \\$15.34的现价下重申其12个月买入评级，并设定HK \\$30的目标价，较UBS出售股份的价格高170%。\n\nVI. 由于UBS的行为，Ace Decade损失了其\\$500 Million投资中的逾\\$495 Million。\n\n65. 由于UBS对海通股份进行折价大宗出售，UBS在总计US \\$1.25 billion的投资中仅收回HK \\$6,325,703,099.27（约合US \\$816.2 million）。\n\n66. UBS从其通过大宗出售收回的金额中扣除下列款项后，向Dawn State（道恩州）返还HK\\$36,621,693.83（约合US \\$4.7 million）：\n\n(1) 尚未偿还贷款本金HK \\$6,011,236,393.92（约合US \\$775.6 million）；(2) 截至强制提前还款通知日累计的利息HK \\$44,003,279.72（约合US \\$5.7 million）；(3) 解除成本HK \\$1,873,883.54（约合US \\$241.8 thousand）；以及(4) HK \\$231,967,848.24\n\n（约合US \\$29.9 million）的补足溢价。\n\n67. 因此，由于UBS的行为，Ace Decade在其最初US \\$500 million的投资中损失了约US \\$495.3 million。\n\n-14-\n\n请求救济\n\n第一项诉因（普通法欺诈）\n\n68. Ace Decade援引并重新主张第1-67段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n69. UBS在建议Ace Decade进行该项投资时，故意作出重大事实虚假陈述及遗漏。除其他事项外，UBS虚假陈述，融资函不会包含基于短期价格波动的追加保证金触发条件，并会给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知；UBS还会尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足追加保证金通知。\n\n70. UBS还表示，Haixia是保护Ace Decade利益的最佳独立中介机构，但向Ace Decade隐瞒Haixia受UBS合资伙伴控制的事实。此后，Haixia与UBS订立了贷款融资协议，其中包含有利于UBS且不利于Ace Decade的单方面条款。Ace Decade依赖UBS虚假且具误导性的陈述而蒙受损害，包括订立其与Haixia之间的协议。\n\n71. Ace Decade无法获得UBS所掌握的信息；UBS既是该等股份的配售代理人，也是Ace Decade该项投资的贷款人。Ace Decade亦不知悉UBS与Haixia之间存在利益冲突。\n\n72. UBS明知其陈述及遗漏虚假且具有误导性，并怀有Ace Decade将依赖该等陈述及遗漏的意图和预期而作出该等陈述及遗漏。\n\n73. Ace Decade合理地依赖UBS的虚假陈述及遗漏；若非如此，Ace Decade不会同意通过Haixia投资该等股份。\n\n-15-\n\n74. Ace Decade因UBS的行为直接且近因地遭受损害，包括但不限于金钱损失。由于本文所述行为，UBS应对Ace Decade承担责任，且Ace Decade有权获得救济。\n\n第二项诉因（推定欺诈）\n\n75. Ace Decade援引并重新主张第1-67段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n76. UBS在建议Ace Decade进行该项投资时，故意作出重大事实虚假陈述及遗漏。除其他事项外，UBS虚假陈述，融资函不会包含基于短期价格波动的追加保证金触发条件，并会给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知；UBS还会尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足追加保证金通知。\n\n77. UBS还表示，Haixia是保护Ace Decade利益的最佳独立中介机构，但向Ace Decade隐瞒Haixia受UBS合资伙伴控制的事实。此后，Haixia与UBS订立了贷款融资协议，其中包含有利于UBS且不利于Ace Decade的单方面条款。Ace Decade依赖UBS虚假且具误导性的陈述而蒙受损害，包括订立其与Haixia之间的协议。\n\n78. Ace Decade无法获得UBS所掌握的信息；UBS既是该等股份的配售代理人，也是Ace Decade该项投资的贷款人。Ace Decade亦不知悉UBS与Haixia之间存在利益冲突。\n\n79. UBS就Ace Decade的该项投资担任顾问，并在其他事项中建议Ace Decade设计该交易结构，使其投资通过Haixia进行，并为该项投资的重要部分获得融资。因此，UBS与Ace Decade形成了密切的信义关系。\n\n80. Ace Decade合理地依赖UBS的虚假陈述及遗漏；若非如此，Ace Decade不会同意通过Haixia投资该等股份。\n\n81. Ace Decade因UBS的行为直接且近因地遭受损害，包括但不限于金钱损失。由于本文所述行为，UBS应对Ace Decade承担责任，且Ace Decade有权获得救济。\n\n第三项诉因（违反信义义务）\n\n82. Ace Decade援引并重新主张第1-67段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n83. Ace Decade依赖UBS作为其受托人，并就其对该等股份的投资向其提供建议。\n\n84. UBS就Ace Decade的该项投资担任顾问，并在其他事项中建议Ace Decade设计该交易结构，使其投资通过Haixia进行，以规避披露要求，并为该项投资的重要部分获得融资。因此，UBS与Ace Decade形成了密切的信义关系。\n\n85. UBS向Ace Decade宣称，其在就此类配售投资向Ace Decade等投资者提供建议方面具有知识和经验。因此，Ace Decade对UBS寄予信任和信赖，并遵循UBS的建议安排其投资结构及向UBS取得贷款。\n\n86. 在该关系存续期间，UBS在建议Ace Decade进行该项投资时故意作出重大事实虚假陈述及遗漏，滥用了Ace Decade对UBS的信任。除其他事项外，UBS虚假陈述，融资函不会包含基于短期价格波动的追加保证金触发条件，并会给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知；UBS还会尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足追加保证金通知。\n\n87. UBS还表示，Haixia是保护Ace Decade利益的最佳独立中介机构，但向Ace Decade隐瞒Haixia受UBS合资伙伴控制的事实。此后，Haixia与UBS订立了贷款融资协议，其中包含有利于UBS且不利于Ace Decade的单方面条款。Ace Decade依赖UBS虚假且具误导性的陈述而蒙受损害，包括订立其与Haixia之间的协议。\n\n88. Ace Decade无法获得UBS所掌握的信息；UBS既是该等股份的配售代理人，也是Ace Decade该项投资的贷款人。Ace Decade亦不知悉UBS与Haixia之间存在利益冲突。\n\n89. Ace Decade因UBS的行为直接且近因地遭受损害，包括但不限于金钱损失。由于本文所述行为，UBS应对Ace Decade承担责任，且Ace Decade有权获得救济。\n\n第四项诉因（过失性失实陈述）\n\n90. Ace Decade援引并重新主张第1-67段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n91. UBS在建议Ace Decade进行该项投资时作出重大事实虚假陈述及遗漏，并因过失未能知悉其虚假。除其他事项外，UBS虚假陈述，融资函不会包含基于短期价格波动的追加保证金触发条件，并会给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知；UBS还会尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足追加保证金通知。\n\n92. UBS还因过失表示Haixia是保护Ace Decade利益的最佳独立中介机构，但向Ace Decade隐瞒Haixia受UBS合资伙伴控制的事实。此后，Haixia与UBS订立了贷款融资协议，其中包含有利于UBS且不利于Ace Decade的单方面条款。Ace Decade依赖UBS虚假且具误导性的陈述而蒙受损害，包括订立其与Haixia之间的协议。\n\n93. UBS对Ace Decade负有披露义务。UBS就Ace Decade的该项投资担任顾问，并在其他事项中建议Ace Decade设计该交易结构，使其投资通过Haixia进行，并为该项投资的重要部分获得融资。因此，UBS与Ace Decade形成了密切的信义关系。\n\n94. Ace Decade无法获得UBS所掌握的信息；UBS既是该等股份的配售代理人，也是Ace Decade该项投资的贷款人。Ace Decade亦不知悉UBS与Haixia之间存在利益冲突。\n\n95. Ace Decade合理地依赖UBS的虚假陈述及遗漏；若非如此，Ace Decade不会同意通过Haixia投资该等股份。\n\n96. UBS知悉Art Decade将依赖其关于该项投资的建议和陈述。\n\n97. Ace Decade因UBS的行为直接且近因地遭受损害，包括但不限于金钱损失。由于本文所述行为，UBS应对Ace Decade承担责任，且Ace Decade有权获得救济。\n\n-19-\n\n第五项诉因（不当得利）\n\n98. Ace Decade援引并重新主张第1-67段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n99. UBS（瑞银集团）通过以下方式以 Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德）为代价获益：(a) 就其顾问服务收取 US $9.2 million 的费用；(b) 从补足溢价费用中获得 US $29.9 million；以及 (c) 以大幅折价向其自身出售大量股份。\n\n100. UBS 不当地保留了以 Ace Decade 为代价取得的该等不法收益。\n\n101. 由于 UBS 收取并不当地保留了以 Ace Decade 为代价获得的该等金钱利益，UBS 应对 Ace Decade 承担责任，且 Ace Decade 有权获得救济。\n\n救济请求\n\n102. 因此，原告 Ace Decade 请求法院作出有利于其并针对被告 UBS 的判决如下：\n\nA. 判给原告将在审判中确定数额的损害赔偿，以赔偿其因 UBS 对该等股份进行大宗出售而遭受的损失；\n\nB. 判决前利息和判决后利息，以及任何及全部进一步的费用、支出和合理的律师费及专家费用；\n\nC. 准予本法院认为公正和适当的其他救济，包括衡平救济和禁令救济。\n\n-20-\n\n日期：New York, NY October 5, 2015\n\nBOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP（博伊斯、席勒与弗莱克斯纳律师事务所）\n\n签署人：David Boies（大卫·博伊斯）\n\n333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 电话：(914) 749-8200 传真：(914) 749-8300 电子邮箱：dboies@bsfllp.com\n\nQian A. Gao（高倩） 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 电话：(212) 446-2300 传真：(212) 446-2350 电子邮箱：qgao@bsfllp.com\n\n原告 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯迪凯德控股有限公司）的律师","key_entities":["Kwok","CIPA","Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6244,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:12:53"}