Charles Zhen Qu

Impacts of China Tourism Law on Chinese Outbound Travelers and Stakeholders: An Exploratory Discussion

China’s first Tourism Law came into force on October 1, 2013 with the purpose of regulating malpractices in the tourism industry, in particular coercive shopping, low price, and poor quality tours. It is still not clear how it has impacted on travelers and the relevant stakeholders, such as destinations and travel agencies. As an exploratory study, the authors have identified and analyzed the possible outcomes of the Tourism Law’s impacts on various stakeholders and pointed directions for future research on this topic.

Towards an Effective Scheme-Based Corporate Rescue System for Hong Kong

Scheme of Arrangement (SOA) was dismissed as a viable restructuring device in the corporate rescue debate towards the end of the last century. This paper demonstrates that SOA can be used effectively to perform corporate rescue functions. This conclusion is based on an assessment of the efficacy of the SOA-based rescue system developed by the Hong Kong courts since the mid-late1990s. The paper points out, however, that the effectiveness of this scheme-based restructuring system can be greatly improved by linking a court-controlled moratorium to the SOA provision in Hong Kongs Companies Ordinance.

Massey v Wales; Massy v Cooney

A company must, as an artificial legal person devoid of physical existence, act through the mediation of natural persons. Modern company law in common law jurisdictions recognizes two groups of individuals through whom the company functions, namely the board of directors and the members’ general meeting. The division of powers between these two bodies is normally determined by one or more regulations in the company’s constitutional documents. Where, as is normally the case, the power of management is given to the board of the directors, precisely how or in what circumstances the general meeting may intervene in the management of the company has long been regarded as a vexed issue. One of the related issues that has arisen repeatedly through the history of company law, but which has not been resolved in a satisfactory manner, is whether and in what circumstances the general meeting may raise or otherwise ratify proceedings in the name of the company. In most of the reported cases wherein this question arose as an issue, the relevant regulations in each company’s constitution were identical with or similar to either regulation 80, Table A, Companies Act 1948 (UK) or regulation 73, Table A of Australia’s superceded Uniform Companies Act.2 Under regulation 80 and regulation 73, the management powers of the directors were subject to the provisions of the Act and of the Articles as well as to ‘. . . such regulations, being not inconsistent with the aforesaid regulations or provisions, as may be prescribed by the company in general meeting’.3