!
,་
'te
R
+
A To
MID Uni i.
་
111am, whe is now on the return journey from Ghunghai, by have further particulars regarding this apparent
520
3. Juo pens y. We expect him within the next couple of days,
d if he has anything to communicate with regard to this,
chall advise him at once.
if Hongkong and singapore are different partnerships hors will be, we think, a difficulty in moting on the ursstion to pael assets, In fact, vs think, that in this yant, Yongkong should be allowed to prove in competition ith the other órediters against 'Singapore for their
bidobbednona te Hongrong.
Another aspect of the question for consideration e to whom was credit given for goods supplied to Singapors.
h firm's crediters had, by a long course of dealing, learnt
to rely on Uaupp & 0ɔ. and not having received any netice (as soome probable) as to the constitution of the firy in
One oroditer against
Jinzapere, they may have considered that credit riven to Singapore was in fact given to Hongkong. Bingapore, Marka & Deha, 21,408, did take this view.
We informed är. Lefts, their representative en the 18th. of Neroh last, that the liquidations were entirely saparate and that his firm's olsin being for goeds supplied
to Singapore, his proper course was to apply te the Liquidater there, and we also urged him to consult hie solicitors in the
He expressed great þvent of his net agreeing to our ruling. dunsatisfaction but we have not heard from him since.
Our view has always been that the liquidations
are separate, but the position is full of difficulties and mare se beqaure of the law in Singapore allowing rreferential
frights to leosl creditors.
We desire to state that if it be decided to merge the assets the proceedings in reference to the validity of the Bank's lion, new in abeyance by consent, should be continued in the interests of all creditors in view of the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.