CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929 — Page 43

41

-

11. Clause 10 is based on section 12 (1) of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866. The Bank does not require the re-enactment of the other sub-sections of section 12 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866. The liability of shareholders for the note issue is dealt with in clause 12 of the Bill. The limitation of the period of issue to July 1939 is made as the result of instructions from the Secretary of State.

12. Clause 11, as to the amount of and security for the uote issue, is a reproduction of section 13 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866, as amended by Ordinance No. 2 of 1924, except that the word " notes is substituted for "bills and notes," because the word "note," alone is considered by the Bank sufficient.

13. Clause 12, as to the liability of shareholders on dis- solution, re-enacts in simplified language the combined provisions of section 12 (5) and (6), and of section 25 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866. See too regulation No. 166 which replaces article 208 of the Deed of Settlement,

14. Clause 13 as to forms of contract and clause 14 as to bills of exchange and promissory notes apply to the Bank the provisions of sections 76 and 77 of the English Companies Act, 1908, which are in accord with the present practice of the Bank.

15. Clause 15 re-enacts section 16 of Ordinance No, 2 of 1866, except that one-tenth is substituted for one-third.

16. Clause 16 re-enacts section 14 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866.

17. Clause 17 re-enacts section 28 (1) and (2) of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866. It does not appear necessary to re-enact sub-section (3) of section 28.

18. Clause 18 makes the necessary repeals. It should be mentioned that, although section 11 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866 refers to the possibility of by-laws being made under the Deed of Settlement, no sneh hy-laws have in fact been made.

19. Clause 19 is the us tal clause for saving the rights of the Crown and others.

20. It only remains to add that the following provisions of Ordinance No. 2 of 1866 have no counterpart in the present measure, because they are either impracticable under pre- sent day conditions (see sections 19 and 20), or unnecessary (see sectious 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 24, 26, 27 and 29).

January, 1929

53