KTH Capital Management Limited v China One Financial Limited and KTH Investment Limited - Ruling

¶ IN THE GRANT CO CAUSE NO: 308 OF BETWEEN AND (1) (2) IN CHAMBERS URT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS KTH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED CHINA ONE FINANCIAL LIMITED KTH INVESTMENT LIMITED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS THE 25th JUN Appearances :

¶ [1] The primary proceeding

¶ [2] That stay between KNE 2009 AND 29 JUNE 2009 Mr. Jeremy Walton of Appleby (with him Miss Hudson) also acts for Ironwood Capital Limited) Mr. Nick Dunn of Walkers for the Claimant KTH Investalso acts for Ironwood Capital Limited) RULING my question before me is whether I should lift the stay order of Levers J on 8th March 2005. was imposed in deference to proceedings already inst THI and KTHCM and others, and in which the sub- (1) for the plaintiff stment Limited (he lay imposed on these tituted in Hong Kong object-matter is directly connected

¶ [3] More specific interest ( 12 February China One China call The issue is to the subject-matter in this action. specifically, the subject-matter of this action is an amount ("the Sum") paid into Court by China One, the by 2009. The Sum is said to represent unused subsidy d the Huarong Deal. at of $5,663,698 with first defendant, on ption monies paid to investment scheme in sum is owed.
5. The actions

¶ [6] The first is Mr. Luo, Huarong Du Du and his

¶ [7] Large sum Luo claims in Hong Kong are related in the following way. called the Account Action. In that action KTHI on seeks an account for monies which are said to have cal on behalf of KTHI by KTHCM through KTHCM's wife Ms Vivian Li. of money are alleged to have been misappropriated as that these sums were used by Mr. Wang Du and Ms. behalf of its principal been invested in the principals, Mr. Wang and accrued. As Mr. Li to fund undisclosed investments only involves belongs en-

¶ [8] Mr. Wang some six o

¶ [9] Among the controlled

¶ [10] Thus, even which those Account Act in the Huarong Deal through China One, he also chie- or in China One and so that the unused subscription rate rely to him. Du and Ms. Li, through KTHCM, assert that this is not her investors apart from Mr. Luo in China One. use other six, at least two are, however, acknowledged by Mr. Wang Du and Ms. Li. to the extent only of the disputed ownership of the two entities might claim, there is a clear overlap between action in Hong Kong. aims to have been the monies, that is, the Sum, it so and that there are to be entities owned or as disposition monies seen this action and the

¶ [11] The second KTHI seems Ironwood) Court of A Action has an action in Hong Kong - referred to as the Recovery Ac- tion to recover on behalf of Mr. Luo (and another of the monies alleged to have been misappropriated. appeal, treating the Account Action as a necessary pre- ordered that they proceed in that order. scription - is that in which his companies called Thus, the Hong Kong ursor to the Recovery
12. It is plain from the foregoing, that this action is linked with the Action in Hong Kong. concerns raised by KTHCM here that there is undue delay in due actions, the evidence presented by KTHI in rebuttal is whether Hong Kong is the more appropriate forum for the Account Action and the Recovery Action insofar as account Action was the subject of the order of Levers J on 8th its action. was the subject of the order of Levers J on 8th March 2005.

¶ [13] Despite con- Hong Kong

¶ [14] The issue of involved in issues in the from the foregoing, that this action is linked with the Action in Hong Kong. account Action and the concerns raised by KTHCM here that there is undue delay in due actions, the evidence presented by KTHI in rebuttal is whether Hong Kong is the more appropriate forum for the Account Action and the Recovery Action insofar as account Action was the subject of the order of Levers J on 8th its action. was the subject of the order of Levers J on 8th March 2005.

¶ [15] To my mind, determining balance of forum for a subscription questions Actions.

¶ [16] For these re- seek to "plan them in third, the circumstances suggested by KTHCM now as just- fon, do not present a clear and compelling argument for on, do not present a clear and compelling argument for convenience has so clearly swung as to make Cayman the more appropriate ownership of the unused to be to the overall to be to the overall the two Hong Kong the two Hong Kong dealt management to dealt management to so as to attempt to try so as to attempt to try ons. I therefore refuse ons. I therefore refuse the applica- the applica- tion to lift the stay and to try the issue in this action. tion to lift the stay and to try the issue in this action. ahead of the trials in ahead of the trials in 3