TNAG-2826-FCO40-4079-Investment-Protection-and-Promotion-Agreements-(IPPA)-betwee-1993 — Page 61

101/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

13

({PA,

FROM:

MAR 1993 OFFICER

Jill Barrett

Assistant Legal Adviser

K174 270 3381

REGISTRY

PA Action Tak

DATE:

18 February 1993

Mr Marshall

HKD

HONG KONG/FRANCE IPPA

10,

1. I refer to your minute of 17 February asking for comments on the initialled text.

2. None of the departures from the model text listed in para 3 of Tel No 194 look controversial. (A) is a technical matter, and (B), (C) and (D) look similar to departures already made in earlier initialled texts.

3. However, the effect of the changes made to the definition of "companies" in relation to Hong Kong in order to match the definition provided by the French for their companies might make a slight difference to the disadvantage of Hong Kong. Companies, etc., incorporated or constituted under the law of Hong Kong will only be protected by the agreement if their head office is in Hong Kong. It may be that such companies necessarily have their head office there anyway, in which case this extra condition will make no difference in practice. But I have no idea what the requirements of Hong Kong law are. If Hong Kong law and French law define companies differently it might be reasonable to have non-matching definitions in the agreement.

4.

It may well be that even if it does have the effect of narrowing the category of HK companies which can take advantage of the agreement, it is of little concern given that the primary purpose of this exercise is to protect inward investment. Nevertheless, you might like to ask HKG whether the change will make any practical difference and if so whether it was intended.

TillBamlo

Jill Barrett