ZHI CHARLES v. KIM YOUNG JUN AND OTHERS

HCA 1754/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1754 OF 2015

____________

BETWEEN
ZHI CHARLES Plaintiff
and
KIM YOUNG JUN 1st Defendant
CHOI SUNG MIN 2nd Defendant
LIM HOSOK 3rd Defendant
JANG SAMKI 4th Defendant
HONG SANG JUN 5th Defendant
PANG KWANG TING 6th Defendant
CORDIA GLOBAL LIMITED 7th Defendant
GOLDWYN MANAGEMENT LIMITED 8th Defendant
ACME PERFECT LIMITED 9th Defendant
FIRST GLORY LIMITED 10th Defendant
LUCREZIA LIMITED 11th Defendant
TOKEN CENTURY LIMITED 12th Defendant
DAILY LOYAL LIMITED 13th Defendant
PIONEER CENTRE LIMITED 14th Defendant
MASTER IMPACT LIMITED 15th Defendant
SKYLINE MERIT LIMITED 16th Defendant
KEYSTONE GLOBAL LIMITED 17th Defendant
SIBERIAN MINING GROUP COMPANY LIMITED 18th Defendant

____________

Before: Hon L Chan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 7 August 2015
Date of Decision: 7 August 2015

_____________

DECISION
_____________

1. The resumption notice was published on 22 April 2015. Nothing in reliance on that can be urgent.

2. On dissipation, Mr Zhi accepts that he has no locus standi. Furthermore, he has given no information on how he had learned that there will be dissipation of shares of D18 shortly.

3. He also wants to stop the defendants from voting their shares at the AGM on 4 September 2015. He says that the shareholders couldbe asked to vote for the reappointment of the Board. I think if the Board is to continue, then there is no urgent problem. If theBoard is problematic, it has been so since its appointment in February 2015.

4. Mr Zhi also says that the AGM will approve the audited report, but if the report is wrong, the approval will not make it right.

5. Mr Zhi has also reported his complaints to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (“HKSE”). He says that the HKSE is investigating thematter. If there is any urgency, I am sure the HKSE would have acted already.

6. Since there is no urgency and Mr Zhi has admitted his want of locus standi, I dismiss the injunction. I also order him to pay the costs of D3, 4, 5 and 18.

(Louis Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

The plaintiff appeared in person

Ms Roberta Chan, of Baker & McKenzie, for the 3rd to 5th and 18th defendants

The 1st, 2nd and 6th to 17th defendants were not represented and did not appear