1.Paragraph 15 be amended to read “ In December 2007, Tin and Pong had a meeting with Wong in a restaurant in Sai Kung where they discussed business. ” ;
2.Paragraph 22 be amended to read “ In April 2009, Fully Fortune issued demand letters to Tin and Pong demanding payment of rent. Tin and Pong did not respond. ” ;
3.Paragraph 35 be amended to read “ As for the signing of tenancy agreement with Fully Fortune and the letter requesting Matrix Wealth to pay the rental for him, Tin’s case is that at first he refused to sign as that would be contrary to his right to live in his flat rent free under the 2nd Chinese Document. However, he and Pong were persuaded to sign on Wong’s representation that if they did not enter into the tenancy agreements, it would be difficult to obtain bank financing for their construction projects. ” ; and
4.Paragraph 64 be amended to read “ Wong also argues that the petitions are abuse of proceedings as they were taken out for the ulterior purpose of preventing him and his Companies from pursuing the counterclaim against Tin. Even if that is Tin’s motive of taking out the petition, the petitioning debt is indisputable. Admittedly, the Companies are unable to pay the petitioning debt. The Companies are insolvent. Fully Fortune has failed to pay the mortgage repayments and judgment has been entered against it by Dah Sing Bank under HCMP 78/2017. Wong has withheld financial information of the Companies. If the Companies are not insolvent, they should pay the petitioning debt and continue their counterclaim. If the Companies are insolvent, they should be wound up in the face of an indisputable debt to which they have no defence or counterclaim of an equal or greater amount. If Wong genuinely believes that the Companies have a genuine counterclaim, he can persuade the liquidator to pursue the counterclaim or to assign the cause of action to him. ”.