合夥售股，信義與揭露義務？？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. 訴 HWH HOLDINGS LIMITED 及 其他 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Coleman J - 判決日期：2025年10月15日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三宗合併審理的訴訟，原告Delco Participation B.V. (Delco) 向多名被告提出申索，包括HWH Holdings Limited (HWH)、Chiho Environmental Group Limited (CT) 及其前身、Chiho-Tiande (HK) Limited (CTHK) 及方安空 (Fang)。Delco與Fang的集團曾共同經營一家中外合資企業，從事廢金屬回收和貿易。該合資企業曾進行重組並計劃上市。Delco指控Fang及其關聯公司存在「循環交易計劃」(Scheme)，透過低報利潤和虛假債務來逃稅。訴訟主要圍繞Delco向HWH追討1% CT股份的銷售款、向Fang追討未資本化部分款項、向Fang/HWH追討可換股債券利息，以及因Fang未披露CT潛在投資者而提出的違反受信責任申索。被告方則提出反申索，並以抵銷及慣例協議作為抗辯。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議包括： 1. Fang/HWH是否須支付1% CT股份的銷售款，以及是否存在約10%的折扣協議。 2. Delco對未資本化部分款項的申索是否有效，以及該款項是否曾被調整。 3. Fang/HWH提出的債務（方氏債務、HKM金屬債務、Chern債務）是否真實存在，以支持其抵銷抗辯。 4. Fang是否違反了對Delco的受信責任 (fiduciary duties)，因其未披露CT潛在投資者USUM的資訊。 5. CTHK是否拖欠Delco 100萬美元貸款，以及該申索是否已過時效。 6. CT是否違反了可換股債券承諾 (CB Undertaking) 中盡最大努力 (best endeavours) 的義務。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定存在「循環交易計劃」(Scheme)，該計劃影響了Delco Asia賬目記錄的真實性。法官認為，Fang/HWH提出的債務（方氏債務、HKM金屬債務、Chern債務）並非真實存在且不具償還義務，因此駁回了其抵銷抗辯和反申索。關於1% CT股份的銷售款，法庭認為不存在口頭約定的折扣，HWH須支付全額。法庭認定Fang對Delco負有受信責任，因其承諾協助Delco出售股份，並利用其在CT的內部資訊優勢。Fang未披露USUM潛在投資的資訊構成違反受信責任。對於100萬美元貸款申索，法庭認為Delco未能證明CTHK是債務人，且該申索已過時效。CT未違反可換股債券承諾，因其義務僅限於尋找買家或贖回本金，而非以高於本金的價格出售。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下判例： - Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Texan Management Ltd (unreported, CACV 90-91, 93-96/2012, 17 September 2013): 關於法庭在一方未傳召證人時可作出的不利推論。 - Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786: 關於「虛假交易」(sham) 的定義。 - Hitch v Stone [2001] STC 214: 關於虛假交易必須有共同意圖。 - Chen Yung Ngai Kenneth v Ho Yuk Wah David [2020] HKCFI 2518: 關於虛假交易的後果是無效。 - Peskin v Anderson [2001] 1 BCLC 372: 關於董事在何種特殊情況下對股東負有受信義務。 - Libertarian Investments Ltd v Hall (2013) 16 HKCFAR 681: 關於違反受信義務的因果關係和賠償責任。 - AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503: 關於衡平法賠償的因果關係。 - MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2019] AC 119: 關於「不得口頭修改條款」的效力。 - Luo Xing Juan v Estate of Hui Shui See [2009] HKCFAR 1: 關於承諾性不容反悔 (promissory estoppel) 的原則。 - Pui Ying Middle School of Hong Kong v Hong Kong Council of the Church of Christ in China [2021] HKCFI 692: 關於「盡最大努力」條款的解釋。 - Kowloon Development Finance Ltd v Pendex Industries Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 336: 關於合約更正 (rectification) 的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定： 1. Fang/HWH須向Delco支付衡平法賠償 (equitable compensation) 332,922,194港元，加自2015年1月23日起的判決前利息。 2. HWH須支付1% CT股份銷售款46,883,466港元，加自2015年11月5日起的判決前利息。 3. Fang須支付未資本化部分款項55,501,079港元，加自2011年3月4日起的判決前利息。 4. Fang/HWH須支付可換股債券利息6,252,000港元，加自2013年9月20日起的判決前利息。 5. 駁回Delco對CT和CTHK的所有申索。 6. 駁回Fang、HWH和CT對Delco的所有反申索。 7. 駁回CT對Fang和HWH基於彌償函的反申索。 法庭維持了對Fang/HWH的判決後資產凍結令 (Mareva injunction)。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在合資企業關係中，一方承諾協助另一方出售資產時可能產生的受信責任。即使雙方處於商業交易中，若一方利用其內部資訊優勢，未向另一方披露重要資訊，則可能構成違反受信責任。此外，判決重申了在評估債務真實性時，法庭會全面審視證據，而不僅僅依賴賬目記錄或審計確認書。對於「盡最大努力」條款，法庭會根據合約目的和商業常識來解釋其範圍，而非要求一方犧牲自身商業利益。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v HWH HOLDINGS LIMITED and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Coleman J - Date of Judgment: 15 October 2025 ### Factual Background This case involves three consolidated actions where the Plaintiff, Delco Participation B.V. (Delco), brought claims against multiple defendants, including HWH Holdings Limited (HWH), Chiho Environmental Group Limited (CT) and its predecessor, Chiho-Tiande (HK) Limited (CTHK), and Fang Ankong (Fang). Delco and Fang's groups were previously partners in a Sino-foreign joint venture for scrap metal recycling and trading. The joint venture underwent restructuring and planned for listing. Delco alleged a "round tripping scheme" (Scheme) by Fang and his associated companies to evade tax through under-reporting profits and creating fictitious debts. The claims primarily concerned Delco's pursuit of the sale price for 1% CT shares from HWH, the uncapitalised portion from Fang, CB interest from Fang/HWH, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Fang for non-disclosure of a potential investor in CT. The defendants raised counterclaims and relied on set-off and convention agreements as defenses. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in dispute included: 1. Whether HWH was liable to pay the sale price for 1% CT shares, and if an alleged 10% discount agreement existed. 2. The validity of Delco's claim for the uncapitalised portion, and whether this amount had been adjusted. 3. Whether the debts asserted by Fang/HWH (Fang Debt, HKM Metal Debt, Chern Debt) were genuine, supporting their set-off defense. 4. Whether Fang breached his fiduciary duties to Delco by failing to disclose information about potential investor USUM in CT. 5. Whether CTHK owed Delco US$1 million, and if this claim was time-barred. 6. Whether CT breached its "best endeavours" obligation under the CB Undertaking. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court found that a "round tripping scheme" (Scheme) existed, which affected the veracity of Delco Asia's accounting entries. The judge concluded that the debts asserted by Fang/HWH (Fang Debt, HKM Metal Debt, Chern Debt) were not genuine and did not carry repayment obligations, thus dismissing their set-off defense and counterclaims. Regarding the 1% CT shares claim, the Court found no orally agreed discount, holding HWH liable for the full amount. The Court determined that Fang owed fiduciary duties to Delco, having undertaken to assist Delco in selling its shares and leveraging his insider knowledge of CT. Fang's failure to disclose USUM's potential investment constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. For the US$1 million loan claim, the Court found Delco failed to prove CTHK as the debtor and that the claim was time-barred. CT did not breach the CB Undertaking, as its obligation was limited to procuring a buyer or redeeming the principal, not selling at a price above principal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following precedents were cited: - Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Texan Management Ltd (unreported, CACV 90-91, 93-96/2012, 17 September 2013): On adverse inferences from failure to call a witness. - Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786: Definition of a "sham" transaction. - Hitch v Stone [2001] STC 214: Common intention required for a sham. - Chen Yung Ngai Kenneth v Ho Yuk Wah David [2020] HKCFI 2518: Consequences of a sham transaction. - Peskin v Anderson [2001] 1 BCLC 372: Special circumstances for directors' fiduciary duties to shareholders. - Libertarian Investments Ltd v Hall (2013) 16 HKCFAR 681: Causation and liability for breach of fiduciary duty. - AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503: Causation in equitable compensation. - MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2019] AC 119: Effect of "no oral modification clauses." - Luo Xing Juan v Estate of Hui Shui See [2009] HKCFAR 1: Principles of promissory estoppel. - Pui Ying Middle School of Hong Kong v Hong Kong Council of the Church of Christ in China [2021] HKCFI 692: Interpretation of "best endeavours" clauses. - Kowloon Development Finance Ltd v Pendex Industries Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 336: Principles of rectification. ### Decision & Orders The Court ordered: 1. Fang/HWH to pay equitable compensation of HK$332,922,194 to Delco, plus pre-judgment interest (at prime + 1%) from 23 January 2015. 2. HWH to pay HK$46,883,466 for the 1% CT shares sale, plus pre-judgment interest (at prime + 1%) from 5 November 2015. 3. Fang to pay HK$55,501,079 for the uncapitalised portion, plus pre-judgment interest (at prime + 1%) from 4 March 2011. 4. Fang/HWH to pay HK$6,252,000 for CB interest, plus pre-judgment interest (at prime + 1%) from 20 September 2013. 5. Delco's claims against CT and CTHK are dismissed. 6. Counterclaims by Fang, HWH, and CT against Delco are dismissed. 7. CT's counterclaim against Fang and HWH based on the Letter of Indemnity is dismissed. The post-judgment Mareva injunction against Fang/HWH was maintained. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the fiduciary duties that can arise when one party undertakes to assist another in selling assets within a joint venture, even in a commercial context. If one party leverages insider information and fails to disclose material facts, it may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. The ruling also reaffirms that courts will holistically assess evidence when determining the genuineness of debts, not relying solely on accounting records or audit confirmations. For "best endeavours" clauses, the court interprets their scope based on contractual purpose and commercial common sense, not requiring a party to sacrifice its own commercial interests. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.