Re Mandarin Resources Corporation Limited
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2594/1988 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. By a petition presented on the 23rd December 1988, Mandarin Resources Corporation Limited (the company) seeks an order for confirmation of a reduction of the share capital of the company and for the cancellation of its share premium account. The object of the application is a step that is intended to lead to a capital reconstruction of the company.
|
HCMP002594/1988 1988, No. M.P. 2594 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS ------------------
----------------------- Coram: Hon. Jones J. in Court Date of hearing: 9th January 1989 Date of delivery of judgment: 9th January 1989 -------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------- 1. By a petition presented on the 23rd December 1988, Mandarin Resources Corporation Limited (the company) seeks an order for confirmation of a reduction of the share capital of the company and for the cancellation of its share premium account. The object of the application is a step that is intended to lead to a capital reconstruction of the company. 2. The company was incorporated on the 24th November 1972 under the name Skylab Enterprises Limited which name was changed to the present name in 1973. The main activity of the company in the mid-1970s was in the investment of shares on the stock exchange in Hong Kong and other parts of the world. Subsequently the company diversified into other activities. The present share capital of the company is $200,000,000 divided into five hundred million shares of 40¢ each of which 293,250,000 shares have been issued and are fully paid. Although the company is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, trading in its shares has been suspended since November 1986. The amount standing to the credit of the share premium account is $640,000. 3. As at the 30th June 1988, the accumulated losses amounted to $104,991,919. 4. By a special resolution passed on the 15th December 1988, it was resolved pursuant to section 116 of the Companies Ordinance that :-
The purpose of the reduction of the share capital and cancellation of the share premium account is to reduce the accumulated losses to which I have referred which will result in a more accurate balance sheet. 5. On the 3rd January 1989, I made an order pursuant to section 59(2) of the Companies Ordinance to dispense with the settlement of a list of creditors for the proposed reduction of share capital and cancellation of the share premium account does not involve either a diminution of any liability or repayment of capital to any shareholders. 6. An undertaking was also given by counsel at the hearing with regard to the reserve that will arise upon the reduction becoming effective so that no part will be capable of distribution to the shareholders of the company, together with appropriate undertakings in connection with various litigation that is being conducted on behalf of the company. 7. The petition, for confirmation of the reduction, came before me for hearing this morning when it was opposed by counsel appearing on behalf of Dah Yung Leasing Pte. Ltd. and Dah Yung Trading Pte. Ltd. (Dah Yung), and counsel on behalf of Metropolitan Nominees Ltd (Metropolitan). Mr Remedios who appeared for Dah Yung requested an adjournment of the hearing of the petition for a period of 28 days in order to obtain instructions as to the stance to be adopted by his clients whilst Mr Chan, on behalf of Metropolitan, submitted that when the special resolution was passed at the extraordinary general meeting held in December, it did not truly reflect the views of all the shareholders. 8. The company concedes that Metropolitan holds 6,356,000 shares as a nominee, but Metropolitan contends that it holds a total of 46,700,000 shares, the balance over and above the 6,356,000 relating to a forfeiture of shares by the company in June 1988. Metropolitan claims that its shareholding of 46,700,000 shares represents 15.92% of the total share capital of the company, but if this figure is reduced to the 6,356,000, it will only represent 2.16% of the share capital. 9. The company took proper steps last year to forfeit a total of 132,060,000 shares which had been allotted to shareholders in September 1984 and which it contends, were not paid for. The company's case is that the funds paid for the shares were the subject matter of a cheque kiting exercise. 10. Metropolitan has contended that those shares have in fact been paid for and I am told that a writ relating to this matter was issued against the company on the 7th January 1989. 11. Following the forfeiture of the shares, Metropolitan alleged that those shares had been purchased by two companies, Halwell Limited (Halwell) and One China Development Limited (One China). Halwell's shareholding represents 28.66% of the share capital and One China, 21.95% and that after a further acquisition, the total share capital held by the two companies amounts to about 51%. 12. Mr Michael Ng, a director of Metropolitan, in his affirmation of the 7th January states in paragraph 24 that the extraordinary general meeting approving the reduction of share capital was held after the purported forfeiture of the shares and that no notice of the meeting had been sent to the registered shareholders of the shares forfeited. He claims that the shares were wrongfully forfeited and that the company was not entitled to sell them to Halwell and One China as it would amount to a conversion of the shares. He goes on to say that the court should not approve a resolution purported to be passed at the meeting when nearly 50% of the members entitled to vote had been deprived of the right to attend and vote at the meeting. 13. Both applications today have been strenuously resisted by Mr Wright who appeared for the company. Mr Wright cited two recent decisions of Harman J. - Re Ratners Group plc (1988)4 BCC 293 and Re Thorn EMI plc (1988)4 BCC 698 with regard to the principles to be applied by the court upon an application to confirm a reduction of capital. In Re Ratners Group plc Harman J, said at page 295 :-
14. Mr Wright also drew my attention to Article 35 of the Articles of Association of the company which deals with the forfeiture of shares. Article 35 reads :-
This provision clearly sets out the rights of those parties who consider that they are aggrieved by a claim in damages against the company. 15. No explanation has been given by either of the opponents today for the considerable delay that has occurred before objection has been put forward nor has any argument been placed before me as to how any prejudice will be suffered if the order for confirmation is made. All the statutory requirements have been complied with and no grounds have been advanced that would justify the court in refusing its confirmation to the reduction sought. The application for the adjournment on behalf of Dah Yung is refused whilst there is no merit in the argument that was presented on behalf of Metropolitan. The order sought is clearly in the best interests of the company and the shareholders. 16. Accordingly, I propose to sanction the reduction as prayed.
Representation: Mr D.A.L. Wright (Hampton Winter & Glynn) for Petitoner Mr L. Remedios (Sinclair Roche) for Dah Yung Leasing Pte. Ltd. and Dah Yung Trading Pte. Ltd. Mr E. Chan (Tai, Tang & Chong) for Metropolitan Nominess Ltd. |