One of my children leases in Hong Kong. She quotes from her Tenancy Agreement

  1. The Landlords

Name : Dekker Investment Limited
Dillinger Investment Limited
Easeluck Development Limited
Jekyll Investment Limited

Registered Office : 72-76/F, Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong. [Emboldening mine.]

  1. Agent of the Landlords

Name : Henderson Leasing Agency Limited

Registered Office : 72-76/F, Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong.

A;; their addresses are the same. So Henderson isn't trying to hide that they share the same office as the "Landlords"! But this isn't simply a legal address for a registered agent! My child visited one of these Floors before, and personally knows some employees with Henderson. They confirm that Floors 72-76 house many employees and offices.

When I Googled the 4 limited corporations, I found no websites or information for a functioning bona fide (Is this the correct term?) company. Thus I think these 4 landlords are merely Shell or Holding Corporations.

Question 1. But why wouldn't Henderson Leasing Agency Limited simply double as the Landlords? Why would they set up separate corporations as the Landlords?

Question 2. Why would Henderson need to set up 4 separate corporations Why not just 1?

2 Answers 2


The property probably has four co-owners who provided capital for the project but want to be protected beyond their investment from landlord-liability for a property managed by a third-party management company, which probably has no ownership interest in the property.

I see that structure a lot in U.S. real estate investments.

There may be tax laws that make co-ownership by four corporations more favorable than having four co-owners in one company serving as a landlord.

  • @asts Fixed. Writing faster than I was thinking.
    – ohwilleke
    Jul 12, 2022 at 20:26

Why do you think they have the same shareholders?

There’s no reason to believe that they are related corporations just because they share an address.

I am shareholder and director of 4 corporations. 3 have the same shareholders in the same proportion. The other has different shareholders. All of them have their registered office at my accountant’s premises. It’s a small suburban practice so there are probably only a few hundred companies at that address. A large city practice would have thousands or tens of thousands.

The property management company probably provides the same service.

  • I didn't even think they have the same shareholders. I do not know anything about corporate law to think anything! "3 have the same shareholders in the same proportion. " Then why have the 3? The 3 feel redundant. Why not unite them?
    – user49089
    Jul 12, 2022 at 6:25
  • 1
    @asts because they operate different businesses
    – Dale M
    Jul 12, 2022 at 9:01
  • Why not unite them into 1 holding corporation, then use 3 different Trade Names to represent them as different businesses?
    – user49089
    Jul 13, 2022 at 4:17
  • @asts because then if one went bust they’d all go bust
    – Dale M
    Jul 13, 2022 at 7:53

You must log in to answer this question.