In re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

In re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

The petition was dismissed (no winding up order) because the court was satisfied there was sufficient in‑principle creditor support for the proposed scheme to justify refusing immediate winding up: disputed claims cannot be taken at full face value for assessing support; internal creditor support could not be disregarded on principle; and no compelling evidence (fraud, need for investigation or material deterioration) justified winding up at that stage.

Citation
In re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: KYH Steel Co. Ltd.; Company: UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Company Limited; Supporting Creditor: Astel Peiniger Joint Venture; Supporting Creditor: Materialab Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 1999
Case Number
HCCW581/1998
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition / Adjourned Hearing and Decision on Petition (no Winding Up Order; Petition Adjourned)
Outcome
No winding up order made; petition adjourned
Legal Topics
Scheme of Arrangement Support, Disputed and Contingent Claims, Creditor Classification and Voting, Investigations and Transactions Recoverable in Liquidation, Adjournment and Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Corporate Restructuring Winding Up Scheme of Arrangement Support Disputed and Contingent Claims Creditor Classification and Voting Investigations and Transactions Recoverable in Liquidation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KYH Steel Co. Ltd.

Petitioner

UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Company Limited

Company

Astel Peiniger Joint Venture

Supporting Creditor

Materialab Ltd.

Supporting Creditor

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition / Adjourned Hearing and Decision on Petition (no Winding Up Order; Petition Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a winding up order should be made against the company
  2. 2 Whether a disputed creditor claim may be treated at face value for assessing in‑principle support for a scheme of arrangement
  3. 3 Whether intra‑group (internal) creditor support should be discounted or excluded when assessing scheme viability

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed (no winding up order) because the court was satisfied there was sufficient in‑principle creditor support for the proposed scheme to justify refusing immediate winding up: disputed claims cannot be taken at full face value for assessing support; internal creditor support could not be disregarded on principle; and no compelling evidence (fraud, need for investigation or material deterioration) justified winding up at that stage.

Court Disposition

No winding up order made; petition adjourned

Orders

  • No winding up order made; petition adjourned
  • Costs of and occasioned on 28 April and 14 May to follow the event; order nisi to that effect