![Hong Kong aerial by night](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/hero/hong-kong-aerial-by-night.jpg?w=265&revision=c1eac3c0-0682-407d-ab12-60bb39ff166f&revision=5249155193037387904&hash=C0C6AB6DDB420183DBAD6F6615F27537)
Publication
Practical Law: Lending to a Company in Hong Kong
The below guides examine the key issues that foreign lenders might encounter when lending to a borrower in Hong Kong.
Author:
United States | Publication | June 4, 2021
On April 26, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeal in Salazar v. See's Candy Shops, Inc., affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification on a meal break claim. In Salazar, plaintiff claimed employees were denied their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours. In support, plaintiff offered the company's meal and rest break policy which did not mention second meal breaks, as well as the company's scheduling form which, while containing columns for "lunch" and two rest breaks, did not contain a column for a second meal break. In opposition to class certification, See's Candy offered timecard evidence showing 24 percent of shifts over 10 hours recorded a second meal break and 43 percent of employees who worked shifts over 10 hours recorded a second meal break. See's Candy also offered declarations demonstrating employees were aware of the Company's policy of providing second meal breaks in shifts over 10 hours. Based on this evidence, the trial court found plaintiff could not prove through common evidence that See's Candy had a consistent practice denying second meal breaks; instead, the individualized evidence required to prove plaintiff's claim would "devolve into a series of mini-trials." Further, the trial court found plaintiff's proposed trial plan was inadequate to manage the individual issues.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court "reasonably concluded that a 'significant number of employees' would likely need to offer individual testimony at trial for the finder of fact to determine whether See's consistently applied a practice of denying second meal breaks" because, based on the "large number of employees who were able to take such breaks (and therefore presumably knew that they could do so), it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of employees made their own decision to decline second meal breaks that they otherwise could have taken." The Court of Appeal also held the trial court properly exercised its discretion in concluding plaintiff's trial plan was inadequate where it offered only vague promises without providing any means to litigate See's Candy's defenses with the proper individual inquiry.
Publication
The below guides examine the key issues that foreign lenders might encounter when lending to a borrower in Hong Kong.
Publication
According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), an estimated 50 million people globally were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021.
Publication
In this article we provide an update on significant new proposals affecting the UK and EU ETS. In particular, we consider the recent consultation on the potential expansion of the UK ETS to include waste, waste incineration and greenhouse gas removals (GGRs).
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023