Mr Stone
HKD
Maz az/00
2
SR 1
FROM:
Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor
DATE:
23 April 1992
MIDDLE EAST FINANCE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) BILL 1992
1. I am puzzled to know why Hong Kong wish us to look at this matter again. I know that I considered the Bill in 1991 (my minute to you of 12 February 1991). The version of the Bill which has now been passed to me to look at seems to be the same as the Bill that I looked at last year, if my memory serves me right.
2.
I do not see any reason to object to the enactment of this Bill. It contains at Clause 17 the necessary saving provision required by Royal Instruction XXVII. I have considered whether the provisions of the Bill which relate to the property overseas of the Middle East Finance International Limited (MEFIL) are extraterritorial and therefore objectionable. However, Clause 5 of the Bill does not provide for the transfer of property of MEFIL situated outside Hong Kong to the Emirates Bank but merely provides that MEFIL shall take all necessary steps for securing the effect of vesting of the property in the bank. But in any case, it is the same provision as that contained in the Dao Heng Bank Limited Ordinance 1990 (see Section 5 (2)).
3. I think on further reflection that this Bill does need to be referred to the Secretary of State. Although it is a Private Bill for the purposes of Royal Instruction XXVII, it is also a Bill which amends the constitution of a banking association (see Royal Instruction XXVI, paragraph 4). In accordance with Royal Instruction XXVI, the Governor must have obtained Royal instructions upon any Bill falling into one of the ten categories set out in Royal Instruction XXVI through a Secretary of State before giving his assent to the Bill.
Shelagh Brooks
S Brooks
AEI ALP
2714