130
$200,000 limit to the Hong Kong deposits so carmarked renders the objection more of academic than of practi-
cal importance.
6. Ther as to Section 24, the valuation question, Mr.Kig and Mr. Blount say that if as provided by this
section one or more policy holders or shareholders can
apply to the Court to wind up the Company as insolvent it will lead to blackmail and that unscrupulous persons
will get hold of a dummy policy holder and threaten
proceedings in such a way as to try to get the Company to buy him off. This is not very convincing. (a) The
wak viny managers must be peelereatures if they allow themselves
to be blackmailed unless the Company really is dishonest-
ly managed, the law is unsympathetic to blackmailors; (b) the Ordinance provides that "the Court shall not
give a hearing to the petition until security for costs for such amount as the Judge shall think reasonable
shall be given, and until a prima facie case shall also
be established to the satisfaction of the Judze"
(c) The English Act is the same on this point and neither Mr.King nor anyone else, made any reference to such an objection before the House of Lords Committee.
9. Then as to the mode of determining insolvency. The English Act lays down no standard no mortality
table or rate of interest. The Hong Kong Ordinance says
that the standard shall be the "Actuaries" Table and 4% interest. The objectors urge (a) that the Table mentioned is obsolete and inappropriate (b) that as Insurance Companies in the East carn up to 7 and 8 per cent, a valuation at 4% is much too severe and would involve the winding up as insolvent of perfectly sound companies (c) that it is bad policy to fix any standard
of