RE BURWILL HOLDINGS LTD (Provisional Liquidators Appointed)

HCMP 250/2021 and HCCW 262/2019 (HEARD TOGETHER) [2021] HKCFI 1318 HCMP 250/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 250 OF 2021 ____________________ IN THE MATTER of Burwill Holdings Limited (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) and IN THE MATTER of section 673 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) ____________________ AND HCCW 262/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 262 OF 2019 ____________________ IN THE MATTER of Burwill Holdings Limited (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) (“Company”) and IN THE MATTER of section 193 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) ____________________ (HEARD TOGETHER) Before: Hon Harris J in Court Date of Hearing: 6 May 2021 Date of Decision: 6 May 2021 ________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ I have before me the petition for sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement between the Company and its unsecured creditors pursuant to section 673 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). On 2 March 2021 I made an order convening a meeting of unsecured creditors of the Company (“Scheme Creditors”) at which the Scheme Creditors could consider and vote on the proposed Scheme. The scheme meeting was convened on 15 April 2021. The necessary resolution was passed unanimously. However, I will not sanction the Scheme today. For the following reason I will adjourn the petition sine die with liberty to restore. On 26 March 2021 the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited wrote informing the Provisional Liquidators of the Company that on 25 March 2021, the Listing Committee had determined that the Company’s listing should be cancelled. The Company has a right to seek a review of that decision from the Listing Review Committee which I understand the Provisional Liquidators propose to exercise. In my view, in these circumstances unless there is good reason to do otherwise the appropriate course for the court to adopt is to adjourn the sanction application pending the determination of the Listing Review Committee. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if the listing is to be cancelled, the Scheme will collapse and the application to the court will have been a waste of judicial resources. Secondly, I do not think it appropriate for the court to make a decision which it might be suggested should influence the Listing Review Committee’s deliberations and ultimate decision. I would note that this is not the first time this situation has arisen. I made a similar order at the hearing of the petition to sanction a Scheme of Arrangement concerning Up Energy Development Group Limited on 23 February 2021. Practitioners should take note that I will expect this to be the court’s normal practice in the future. In addition to the petition, I also have an ex parte summons seeking the following orders: “1. The Order appointing the Provisional Liquidators made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Harris in Chambers (not open to public) dated 21 November 2019 (as amended his Lordship on 16 April 2020) (‘Amended Order’) shall be further amended in the form attached to this Summons; and 2. The Debt Settlement Agreement dated 18 February 2021 entered into between the Company, the Provisional Liquidators (without personal liability) and Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited (the Petitioner herein) be sanctioned pursuant to section 4(26) of the Amended Order.” The first application is necessary because the order appointing the Provisional Liquidators, as is conventional, provided that the costs of the Provisional Liquidators will be paid out of the assets of the Company. As is common the proposed restructuring arrangement included provisions that the investor is to pay the Provisional Liquidators’ costs and therefore, it is necessary for an application to be made under section 193(5) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32). The second application relates to an agreement entered into between the Company and its principal creditor—Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited (“Bangkok Bank”). The agreement deals with two components of the liabilities and rights arising from the facility granted by Bangkok Bank to the Company. The first provides for the release of security in the form of share charges over one subsidiary in particular, which the Provisional Liquidators are of the view needs to be included in a successful restructuring of the Company. The second component addresses the position in respect of the remaining unsecured debt owed to the Bangkok Bank. The view has been taken that it is more appropriate for this unsecured debt to be dealt with outside the Scheme although the amounts that Bangkok Bank are to receive mirrors, the amounts to be paid to Scheme Creditors. I will sanction the debt settlement agreement. I will, make an order in the terms of the ex parte summons dated 29 April 2021 referred to in [5] above. (Jonathan Harris) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Look Chan Ho, instructed by Tanner De Witt, for the company (in HCMP 250/2021) and the provisional liquidators (in HCCW 262/2019) The attendance of the Official Receiver was excused