VOLUME XIX  No. 118 S A T U R D A Y June 3, 2017



China City Construction (International) Company Ltd (中國城市建設[國際]有限公司), a company, incorporated in the Hongkong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but being, effectively, wholly owned by The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (中華人民共和國住房和城鄉建設部), a department of the PRC Government, is the recipient of yet another Writ of Summons, lodged in the HKSAR High Court. 

In HKSAR, Action Number 1153 of 2017, China City Construction (International) is the lone Defendant, the Plaintiff, being Champ Prestige International Ltd (冠譽國際有限公司). 

The Plaintiff is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). 

In the Statement of Claim, attached to Writ of Summons, Number 1153, it is alleged that the Defendant ‘entered into an agreement’, dated October 2, 2015, with the Plaintiff whereby ‘the Plaintiff purchased 45% of shares (“Sale Shares”) in Dingway Investment Ltd (鼎匯投資有限公司)Dingway”) and part of the shareholder’s loan owing by Dingway to the Defendant (the “Sale Loan”) at a consideration of US$40,509,371 (the “Consideration”).’  

The Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) was said to have been supplemented by an agreement, dated February 5, 2016, it is stated at Paragraph Four of the Statement of Claim. 

The Statement of Claim, then, continues at Paragraphs Five and Six in the Chinese language as follows: 

‘5.   The Supplemental Agreement provided, inter alia:-


“贵司及我司需在2016630日或之前订立就迈阿密土地权益发展于2017年第一季内之EB5融资额度达成一致共识, 贵司亦需在2016630日或之前提出迈阿密土地权益发展有关项目的融资方案情(包括EB5融资), 并由双方共同确认融资方案应满足项目发展需要”


‘6.   Further, pursuant to the Supplemental Agreement, clause 6.6 of the SPA was amended as follows:-


“EB5融资额度在买卖合同签订起至2017年第一季结束时未能达至双方于买卖合同第5.1(9)条款之水平或未能就EB5融资额度达成一致共识, 中城建保证及承诺以买卖合同订立之购买价100%回购交易股份及待售贷款并弥偿冠誉国际于买卖合同签订日起投放于鼎汇投资的所有支出及购买价之利息(日期由买卖合同签订日起计算) 当冠誉国际书面通知中城建行使上述回购权利时, 中城建需于收到书面通知后十四天内全数偿还冠誉国际上述回购金额及缴清所有利息﹑支出及费用等。” 

Paragraph Seven of the Statement of Claim alleges that despite ‘repeated requests’ from the Plaintiff, the last request, contained in a letter, having been dated March 22, 2017, ‘the Defendant has failed to submit any proposal in respect of the EB5 financing including the financing limit to the Plaintiff.’ 

Then, taking up ... CLICK  TO  ORDER  FULL  ARTICLE






While TARGET makes every attempt to ensure accuracy of all data published, 
TARGET cannot be held responsible for any errors and/or omissions.


If readers feel that they would like to voice their opinions about that which they have read in TARGET, please feel free to e-mail your views to editor@targetnewspapers.com. TARGET does not guarantee to publish readers' views, but reserves the right so to do subject to the laws of libel.