VOLUME XVIII No. 160	T H U R S D A Y	July 28, 2016

LEGEND STRATEGY INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS GROUP COMPANY LTD:
THE FORMER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IS SUED, ONCE AGAIN

The former Executive Chairman of Legend Strategy International Holdings Group Company Ltd (朸濬國際集團控股有限公司) (Code: 1355, Main Board, The Stock Exchange of Hongkong Ltd) has, once again, been sued in the High Court of the Hongkong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Mr Kelvin Man Fong (方文) is the lone Defendant in HKSAR High Court Action, Number 1832 of 2016.

The Plaintiff in this Action is Mr Daniel Ludovicus Joannes de Weyer (戴偉仁), a Belgian national.

According to the database of TOLFIN (泰達資訊), the Computerised, Online Financial Intelligence Service and Web-Based, Credit-Checking Provider, Mr Daniel Ludovicus Joannes de Weyer was a Non-Executive Director of Legend Strategy International Holdings Group Company Ltd between June 2011 and September 2014.

TOLFIN’s records indicate that, as at December 31, 2013, Mr Daniel Ludovicus Joannes de Weyer owned 4.80 percent of the Issued and Fully Paid-Up Share Capital of Legend Strategy International Holdings Group Company Ltd.

In the Statement of Claim, attached to Writ of Summons, Number 1832 of 2016, the Plaintiff makes the following allegations:

‘1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for the sum of HK$2,900,000, being the amount of a cheque no. 000079, dated 15th October 2015, of HK$100,000 (the "1st Cheque") and cheque no. 000078, dated 1st November 2015, of HK$2,800,000 (the "2nd Cheque"), drawn by the Defendant on the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Limited ("ICBC") (中國工商銀行[亞洲]有限公司) and payable to the Plaintiff.

‘2. The 1st Cheque was duly presented for payment at the HSBC on or about 2nd March 2016 but was returned dishonoured for the reason of "Refer to Drawer".

‘3. The 2nd Cheque was duly presented for payment at the HSBC on or about 14th April 2016 but was returned dishonoured for the reason of "Account Closed".

‘4. The Plaintiff has no notice of the closure of the Defendant’s bank account at ICBC.

‘5. Notice of dishonour was dispensed with by reason of the 1st Cheque being returned with the stated reason of "Refer to Drawer" and the 2nd Cheque being returned with the stated reason of "Account Closed" or by virtue of section 50(2) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 19) for reason that after reasonable diligence, notice could not be given to or did not reach the drawer sought to be charged.

‘6. The Plaintiff is entitled to claim interest pursuant to section 57(a)(ii) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 19).

‘AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:

‘(1) The sum of HK$2,900,000;

‘(2) Interest on the sum of HK$100,000 pursuant to section 57(a)(ii) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 19) from 2nd March 2016 to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment;

‘(3) Interest on the sum of HK$2,800,000 pursuant to section 57(a)(ii) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 19) from 14th April 2016 to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment;

‘(4) Costs;

‘(5) any further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court may think fit.’