In February 2020, global stock markets were shaken by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the price volatility of Nikkei 225 index options that were traded on the night market of the Osaka Exchange in Japan increased sharply. As a result, the synthetic position of Winners Investment Management, which had been employing a neutral strategy for funds and discretionary management on Nikkei 225 index options, was liquidated overnight by its investment intermediary, leading to losses and outstanding payments amounting to tens of billions of won.
 
At that time, A Securities, the investment brokerage firm executed the counter-trade without a margin call based on the standard terms and conditions of the Financial Investment Association. Winners Investment Management and the funds under its management filed a lawsuit alleging that the counter-sale of A Securities did not meet the requirements of the said Terms and Conditions and violated the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act, but the first-instance court ruled that there was no problem with the counter-sale of A Securities. In the second-instance trial, 'Lin' appeared as a relief pitcher in addition to the existing representative, and presented an elaborate logic that the standard terms and conditions were invalid because they violated the Capital Market Act, which was completely different from the argument presented at the first-instance trial.
 
In the second-instance trial, Lin looked at the nature of the investment brokerage business and the meaning of the system, and argued that 'counter-trading without margin calls' violates the current Capital Market Act, and that it is inconsistent with international financial market standards for securities firms to manage risk through counter-trading rather than through commissions, margin, or margin calls. After a year-long trial, the appellate court accepted the argument of Lin by ruling that terms and conditions providing for counter-sale without a margin call are invalid considering the purpose for which the related statues of the Capital Market Act were made – protecting investors and promoting healthy trading order. As a result, the second-instance court reached a conclusion that is completely opposite to that of the lower court. 
 
'Lin' was able to present a variety of arguments covering the law and practice of derivatives transactions by combining inputs from it’s the lead attorney, Jin Seok Lim (20^th, Judicial Training Institute); former deputy chief judge, Deok Jin Kwon (27^th, Judicial Training Institute); former lawyers at Lee & Ko and Kim & Chang, and financial dispute specialists, Dong Jae Yi (31^st, Judicial Training Institute) and Il Roh Kim, former legal team leader at the Korea Exchange and aa capital market specialist Se Yong Um, and U.S. Attorney Hyun Sang Youn, who has experience of working for an overseas financial institution.
 
This is the first case in which terms and conditions related to financial investment where the principle of self-responsibility is crucial have been found invalid by a court, and it marks a turning point in the way we think of the terms and conditions regarding financial investment product transactions. The change has already begun.Reportedly, some securities firms have already launched internal reviews of their terms and conditions in the wake of this ruling, and Lin is creating a new wave in the field of financial investment.
 
Please refer to the following article for more information.
 
View original article▼
Link to article