Re Great Wall Cybertech Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 341/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 July 2003.
1. On 21 June 2003, I made an order appointing Messrs Derek K.Y. Lai and Joseph K.C. Lo, both partners of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ("DTT Hong Kong"), as provisional liquidators of Great Wall Cybertech Limited ("the Company"). By a summons dated 18 July 2003, they apply for directions regarding their continuous appointment as provisional liquidators of the Company. At conclusion of the hearing on 25 July 2003, I allowed the application. These are the reasons of my decision.
Cites 1 case
|
HCCW000341/2003 HCCW341/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO.341 OF 2003 -------------------
------------------- Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Poon in Chambers Date of Hearing: 25 July 2003 Date of Decision: 25 July 2003 Date of Handing Down of Reasons for Decision: 29 July 2003 -------------------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DECISION -------------------------------------------------------- Introduction 1.On 21 June 2003, I made an order appointing Messrs Derek K.Y. Lai and Joseph K.C. Lo, both partners of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ("DTT Hong Kong"), as provisional liquidators of Great Wall Cybertech Limited ("the Company"). By a summons dated 18 July 2003, they apply for directions regarding their continuous appointment as provisional liquidators of the Company. At conclusion of the hearing on 25 July 2003, I allowed the application. These are the reasons of my decision. The relevant circumstances 2.The circumstances leading to this application may be summarised as follows. 3.Before the appointment, the provisional liquidators had carried out a conflict search, which did not reveal any real of potential conflict of interest. However, on 7 July 2003, they came to realise that Deloitte Touche Tohmastu in France ("DTT France") is the present auditor of Great Wall France SAS ("Great Wall France"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, upon receiving for the first time the financial statements of Great Wall France. For 2001 and 2002, the assets of Great Wall France represented about 4.2% and 5% of the Company's consolidated assets and its value of sales represented about 9.9% and 14.2% of the Company's consolidated value of sales respectively. 4.Though they share the same trade name, DTT Hong Kong and DTT France are two separate firms of partnerships. They are independent of each other, having their own management and operation. They have independent source of funds, income and profit as well. There is, however, an arrangement under which certain member firms of DTT may in certain circumstances obtain a financial benefit from the performance of other member firms. DTT France is not legally part of this arrangement but its membership to this arrangement will have retrospective effect once it executes the relevant documentation. When DTT France becomes a member of this arrangement, any benefit derived by DTT Hong Kong from this arrangement depends on the overall performance and profitability of its member firms and is nor referable to any particular engagement of DTT France by any client, including Great Wall France. In 2001 and 2002, Great Wall France paid EURO 25,916.35 and EURO 27,400 respectively to DTT France for their professional fees. The relevant principles 5.Mr Wong, counsel for the provisional liquidators, have helpfully set out the relevant principles in his written submissions. They are :
6.With these principles in mind, I now turn to consider the application. The application 7.There is nothing to suggest that there is any actual or potential conflict of interest arising from the position of DTT Hong Kong and DTT France. Although they share the same trade name, DTT Hong Kong and DTT France are for all practical purposes two separate and independent firms. It is arguable that possible conflict may arise if DTT France decides to join the scheme of arrangement for sharing of profits. However, whether any conflict of interest, actual or potential, will in reality arise depends on the circumstances of the time. At this stage, it remains speculative. In the circumstances, it is undesirable to remove the provisional liquidators purely because of this rather remote possibility of conflict of interest, which is contingent upon DTT France joining the scheme of arrangement and the relevant circumstances at the time. Costs and time would be wasted if other accountants were to be appointed to replace them. In my view, the position will be adequately safeguarded by the provisional liquidators undertaking that upon DTT France joining the said scheme of arrangement, they shall apply to court for further directions as soon as reasonably practicable. The provisional liquidators are willing to give such an undertaking to the court. 8.For the above reasons, I allow the application subject to the aforesaid undertaking by the provisional liquidators.
Representation: Mr Anson M.K. Wong, instructed by Messrs Cheung, Tong & Rosa, for Provisional Liquidators Ms S. Chung, for the Official Receiver |
Cases cited in this judgment