代貼：04年HKIRC法律顧問意見

剛收到一個網友的電郵，披露了一份法律意見，可能是有關it界別候選人零四年突然辭去兩間公司高層的主因。

我未能證實電郵內容的真確性，但基於大家的知情權，我會張貼出來（另為自我保障，我會刪去當中所涉及的人名，全以XXXXX代替;而涉及的公司則以(COMPANY A) 及(COMPANY B)代替），亦請知情的人士可以確認，發揮我地網民求知的精神！

﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣

收件人 mhung.hk@gmail.com

日期 2008年8月22日 下午 5:51

主旨legal advice

莫乃光在上星期的有線電視論壇中，對於別人對他2004年HKIRC為何辭職的質疑，左閃右避。 “是否牽涉利益衝突”不敢正面回應； 說到“事件是否有涉及刑事成分”其回應居然是‘我的法律顧問認為沒有’。大家一定想知道，那麼HKIRC的法律顧問認為有沒有呢？ 一向標榜操守又一草受攻擊別人者，為什麼說到自己的操守就如此窩囊 ？莫非有難言之隱？  

根據我所知道的資料，HKIRC當時為此徵詢的法律意見認為，莫乃光當時的確涉嫌利益衝突，甚至認為是明顯干犯防止賄賂條例， 並建議HKIRC將事件轉交廉政公署作進一步調查，並召開特別董事會議，著令莫乃光等辭職。 大概消息请参看2004年5月17日《成报》报道。 

以下一段是當時HKIRC的法律顧問 Horvath & Giles （即現今HKIRC的法律顧問）的書面意見。 為了避免莫乃光四處追查我的消息來源，我在此只能夠覆述檔內容而不提供原件。莫乃光可以追究我的消息來源，但是不能否認這些千真萬確的內容， 並請公開向我們交代實情。 

各位IT科技界的選民，請擦亮眼睛，看看誰才是真正有操守問題的人！ 

HORVATH & GILES

21^st April 2004 

Nicholas B. Horvath 

Under section 9 of the Protection of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), XXXXX and XXXXX have clearly obtained an advantage from (COMPANY B) regardless of (1) the nature of the advantage; (2) whether or not (COMPANY B) would become the administrator of the “.asia” domain name; or (3) whether XXXX and XXXXX would ultimately achieve what they intended to achieve. 

A director owes fiduciary duties to the company of which he is a director. Briefly, these duties include a duty of good faith including two aspects as follows:

(1) each director is a fiduciary with respect of his company and must act bona fide in what he considers to be in the interests of the company;

(2) he must not place himself in a position where there is a conflict between his duties as a director and his own personal interests. 

XXXXX and XXXXX as the members of the Board of Directors of (COMPAY A) have clearly breached their fiduciary duties owed to (COMPANY A) in establishing (COMPANY B) which is direct conflict with the interest of (COMPANY A). (COMPANY A) has set up a registry of Hong Kong domain names and the setting up of a registry for Asian domain names will be prejudicial to the interests of (COMPANY A). Further these acts were done without the consent (in advance) of the Board of Directors of (COMPANY A). 

The two Mr. XXXXX have also breach their duties in respect of confidentiality as certain confidential information such as business strategy, financial position relating to (COMPANY A) would have been disclosed in the course of establishing (COMPANY B). Although there is no contractual agreement between (COMPANY A) and its directors as regards the protection of confidential information and their duties as officers of the company, there are still common law duties imposed on all company officers. 

As a prima facie, a crime appears to have been committed, the only available course of action is for (COMPANY A)  to report to the ICAC for further investigation. 

In view of the above, the we advise that there are presently three remedies available to (COMPANY A), as follows:

1. that XXXXX and XXXXX should be asked to resign from the Broad of Directors of (COMPANY A). Failing which, (COMPANY A) will need to call an EGM to pass special resolution that XXXXX and XXXXX should be removed. The meeting should be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the company’s Articles of Association;
2. that XXXXX and XXXXX should confirm under oath that they do not possess any confidential information relating to (COMPANY A) and that they will not use any confidential information that is the property of (COMPANY A); and
3. that (COMPANY B) to sign an undertaking confirming that they will not use or refer to or pass or in any way deal with any confidential information that is the property of (COMPANY A). (COMPANY B) should also deliver up any documents, materials and things that are confidential to (COMPANY A).