CSRC proposes a funded settlement process for investor compensation

China’s securities regulator is consulting on a common process for institutions that voluntarily compensate investors following issuer misconduct. Published 19 October, the draft would formalise how compensation is organised, explained and paid. Comments close 18 November, before the CSRC decides on the final guidance.[1]

The underlying mechanism already exists in Securities Law Article 93. Where fraudulent issuance, false statements or other serious misconduct causes losses, an issuer’s controlling shareholders, actual controllers or relevant securities companies can agree advance compensation through an investor-protection institution. The payer can subsequently seek recovery from the issuer and other parties jointly liable.[4]

The CSRC’s explanatory note says the existing principles lack sufficient operational guidance. Its 21-article draft would also allow accounting firms, law firms and other willing participants to use the process by reference. It preserves a voluntary civil settlement between the paying institution and the injured investor.[3]

Funding and the transfer of claims are the decisive steps

The draft requires the intended compensation money to reach a dedicated fund account before the offer is formally published. It also requires prominent notice that accepting payment transfers the investor’s claims against the issuer and all other jointly liable parties to the payer. This is an exchange of rights for settlement, not an additional payment alongside an unchanged claim.[2]

China Securities Investor Protection Fund would provide professional support without charging the payer or investors. Its services could include loss calculations, disclosures and fund administration. It would not assume the underlying civil liability or pursue recovery in the payer’s place. The explanatory note also allows it to refuse complex cases where facts, loss calculations or authority to act are insufficiently clear.[3]

For securities firms, advance compensation brings funding forward while leaving recovery from other liable parties to follow. The distinction is commercially material: a firm needs both the cash to settle and a credible basis for the claims it acquires. The statutory recovery right is separate from the timing or success of collecting it.[4]

Report an error or submit an update