Hck China Investments Ltd. and Another v. Wah Nam Group Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 130/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 April 2000.
1. This is an application for validation under Section 182 of the Companies Ordinance of the issue of new shares by the Company under a Subscription Agreement made between the Company and a company called China Zone Limited.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCCW000166B/2000 HCCW 130/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 130 OF 2000 ____________
____________
____________ HCCW 166/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 166 OF 2000 ____________
(Heard together) ____________ Coram: Hon Yuen J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 12 April 2000 Date of Decision: 12 April 2000 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1. This is an application for validation under Section 182 of the Companies Ordinance of the issue of new shares by the Company under a Subscription Agreement made between the Company and a company called China Zone Limited. 2. The proposed issue is of 150m. new shares of 10 cents each in the Company. At the moment, I am told that the net asset value of the Company is about 3 cents. It is not for me to speculate as to why this company, China Zone, would want to acquire shares in the Company in this way. The subscription moneys are payable in cash. On that basis alone, I would make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Summons issued by the Company on 28 March 2000, with the amendments to the schedule as shown in the letter from the Applicant's solicitors dated 6 April 2000, with the addition of the words "into court" after the words "Wah Nam" in the new paragraph (c) of the schedule. 3. I have been brought to a number of pieces of evidence which indicate that some of the evidence filed on behalf of the Company may raise certain suspicions. As I have said, the present order that I am making is made on the basis and on the basis alone of the benefit that would accrue to the Company from being able to get cash of $15m. Therefore, I would reserve any views that I may have on the propriety or otherwise of the acts of the Company in the past few months as indicated in the evidence before me.
Representation: Mr Kenneth Chan, instructed by Messrs Siao, Wen & Leung, for the Respondent Company Mr David McKellar, of Messrs Horvath & Giles, for the Petitioner in CW 130/2000 Mr Bernard Tam Tak Hing, of Messrs King & Co., for the Petitioner in CW 166/2000 Miss A Li from the Official Receiver's Office |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 130/2000