TNAG-1645-FCO40-2292-Company-law-reform-in-Hong-Kong-Companies-(Amendment)-(No.-2-1987 — Page 102

42

for use in emergency situations and we think

that the recommended amendments make this clearer.

The recommendation in the paragraph (b), that a

provisional liquidator must be qualified is thought

to be necessary in order to prevent the appointment

of "cowboy" liquidators by unscrupulous directors. There

are, of course, no specific requirements for a liquidator

appointed under the other winding up provisions in the

Companies Ordinance to possess any qualifications.

However, there are sufficient safeguards to prevent

an obviously unsuitable person being appointed.

For example, Section 193 of the Ordinance, which deals

with the appointment of an 'ordinary' provisional

liquidator (i.e. other than one appointed under

Section 228A) provides that he shall be appointed by

the court and that "either the Official Receiver or

any other fit person may be appointed". (Our emphasis)

There are no such safeguards in the existing provisions

of Section 228A and we feel that, having regard to the

circumstances in which the Section is likely to be

used in practice, the recommended amendment is necessary.

Some people feel that there should be a requirement for

all liquidators to possess certain qualifications, as is

now the case in, for example, Britain. This is something

we intend to look at in due course but we feel that

Section 228A should be amended as recommended as soon

as possible, in the meantime. The recommendations in (d)

and (e) repeat the provisions of the existing paragraphs

(a) and (c).

/43.