RE AA INVESTMENTS CO LTD
- Citation
- RE AA INVESTMENTS CO LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 27 July 2009
- Posture
- Companies (winding Up) / Decision on Winding Up Petitions (winding Up Orders Made)
- Case number
- HCCW141/2009
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 27 July 2009
- Posture
- Companies (winding Up) / Decision on Winding Up Petitions (winding Up Orders Made)
- Case number
- HCCW141/2009
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court made winding-up orders because the petitioners proved the companies were unable to pay their debts as they fell due — supported by unaudited balance sheets, demands and admissions; presentation of petitions triggered contractual defaults accelerating liabilities, and no bona fide dispute was shown — therefore winding-up was appropriate and costs were to be borne from company assets.
Court disposition
Winding-up orders made in respect of each of the companies in the four petitions.
Orders
- Winding-up order made in respect of each company named in the petitions
- The costs of the petitioner to be paid out of the assets of the company concerned
02
Material facts
Parties
AAHL
Company (subject of Petition)AAICL
Company (subject of Petition)CSDCL
Company (subject of Petition)AAMCL
Company (subject of Petition)Public Bank (Hong Kong) Limited
Petitioner (creditor) Counsel: Mr William WongPetitioner (HCCW Nos. 140,141,142)
Petitioner Counsel: Miss Elizabeth CheungProvisional Liquidators
Interested Party Counsel: Mr Douglas LamOfficial Receiver
Interested Party Counsel: Miss Vivian YeungSupporting Creditors (OK Spring Roll Limited Partnership & Asia Aluminum Group Limited)
Interested Parties Counsel: Messrs Clifford ChanceJoint Receivers and PIK Holders
Interested Parties Counsel: Messrs Allen & OveryAmounts and remedies
- Outstanding 8% Senior Notes Due 2011 (aahl): USD 450,000,000
- 12% Senior PIK Notes Due 2012 (aaicl): USD 335,000,000
- 14% Senior PIK Notes (aaicl): USD 180,000,000
- Demands Under Corporate Guarantees to AAHL (aggregate): USD 9,900,000
- Consolidated Current Liabilities of Group (dec 2008): HKD 8,000,000,000
- Consolidated Current Assets of Group (dec 2008): HKD 5,900,000,000
- Consolidated Net Current Liabilities (dec 2008): HKD 2,200,000,000
- AAICL Current Liabilities (28 Feb 2009): HKD 5,832,271,652
- AAICL Current Assets (28 Feb 2009): HKD 196,213
- AAICL Net Current Liabilities (28 Feb 2009): HKD 5,832,075,440
- CSDCL Indebted to AAHL (principal): USD 300,000,000
- CSDCL Interest Outstanding (approx): USD 48,000,000
- Facility Due to Public Bank by AAMCL (approx): USD 2,600,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Decision on Winding Up Petitions (winding Up Orders Made)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether each company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due
- 02
Whether presentation of petition constituted event of default accelerating liabilities under the notes and related inter-company loans
- 03
Whether there was any bona fide dispute to the debts asserted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Petitioners relied on financial statements and demands showing the companies had net current liabilities, admitted defaults, demands under guarantees and accelerated debts under note agreements and inter-company loans, and therefore were unable to pay their debts and should be wound up.
- Respondent
- Respondents (including provisional liquidators and some companies) did not establish any bona fide dispute as to the debts; several companies accepted they had no bona fide dispute and that they were unable to pay their debts.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32
A company that is unable to pay its debts is liable to be wound up.
- 02
Relevant note instruments and commercial contract law principles
Presentation of a winding-up petition can constitute an event of default under contractual instruments, thereby accelerating obligations.
- 03
Practice and statutory rules governing winding-up proceedings
Costs of the petitioner in winding-up proceedings are payable out of the assets of the company.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court made winding-up orders because the petitioners proved the companies were unable to pay their debts as they fell due — supported by unaudited balance sheets, demands and admissions; presentation of petitions triggered contractual defaults accelerating liabilities, and no bona fide dispute was shown — therefore winding-up was appropriate and costs were to be borne from company assets.
Obiter and limits
- On liquidation of AAMCL the estimated return to unsecured creditors was approximately 41 cents in the dollar.
- Presentation of the petition by AAHL against itself was held to be an event of default under the relevant note instruments, accelerating liabilities.
Court disposition
Winding-up orders made in respect of each of the companies in the four petitions.
- Winding-up order made in respect of each company named in the petitions
- The costs of the petitioner to be paid out of the assets of the company concerned
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 27 July 2009
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 27 July 2009
bjbj dinance, Cap. 32 ____ AND HCCW 141/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 141 OF 2009 ____ IN THE MATTER of AA INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 ____ AND HCCW 142/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 142 OF 2009 ____ IN THE MATTER of CHINA STEEL DEVELOPMENT COMPA |vU\ gP W gP |vU\ gP W gP nted by AAHL on the basis of an inter-company debt, CSDCL is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AAHL. The petition regarding AAMCL was presented by an outside creditor, Public Bank (Hong Kong) Limited. These companies are in a very substantial group known as the Asia Aluminum Group, and have been engaged in the business of aluminium processing, aluminium extrusion, aluminium rolled products, design, engineering, surface-finish and fabrication services based in the PRC. AAICL is the ultimate holding company of the Asia Aluminum Group. AAHL and AAICL were incorporated in Bermuda. AAHL has a principal place of business in Hong Kong and was registered under Part XI of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.
32. It was until 23 May 2006 a listed company in Hong Kong, the listing of its shares was withdrawn as a result of a privatisation. AAICL was incorporated for the specific purpose of implementing the privatisation of AAHL. Both AAHL and AAICL have close connections with Hong Kong. In 2004, AAHL issued 8% Senior Notes due 2011 in the aggregate of US$450 million. The principal amount outstanding on the notes as at 16 February 2009 was US$450 million. In 2006, AAICL issued 12% Senior PIK Notes due 2012 in the aggregate value of US$335 million and 14% Senior PIK Notes in the aggregate value of US$180 million. AAHL and AAICL have experienced liquidity problems since late 2008 and have been pursuing options of debt restructuring for the Group. On 16 February 2009, AAHL and AAICL issued an offer to purchase for cash whereby the noteholders were asked to accept buy-back offer of notes at a discount. The offer was not accepted by the requisite percentage of noteholders. Further, demands were made by various banks to AAHL in February and March 2009 pursuant to corporate guarantees granted by AAHL, in the aggregate sum of over US$9.9 million. AAHL has accepted that it has no bona fide dispute to these liabilities and is unable to pay the debts as they fall due. According to the unaudited consolidated balance sheet of AAICL as at December 2008, the consolidated current liabilities of the
Group amounted to over HK$8 billion, while the consolidated current assets were about HK$5.9 billion. The consolidated net current liabilities at that time, which did not include the amounts outstanding under the notes issued by AAHL and AAICL, were HK$2.2 billion. According to the unaudited balance sheet of AAICL as at 28 February 2009, its current liabilities were HK$5,832,271,652, while its current assets were only HK$196,213. The net current liabilities were HK$5,832,075,440. Both AAHL and AAICL are unable to pay the debts as they fall due. As for CSDCL, which was incorporated in Samoa, it is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AAHL with a principal place of business in Hong Kong. It is an investment holding company, holding all the shares in Asia Aluminum (China) Company Limited issued, to finance the investment in AACCL. The terms of the inter-company loans are such that if any amounts become due on the notes, CSDCL is liable for interest on the principal amount it has borrowed in an amount equal to such amounts due on the same principal amount of the notes. As at 28 February 2009, CSDCL was indebted to AAHL of US$300 million and interest of US$48 million odd. The presentation of the petition by AAHL against itself is an event of default under the notes. This brought about the result that the principal amount of the notes and interest accrued become immediately due and
payable and this in turn accelerated the obligation of CSDCL to repay the amounts due to AAHL under the inter-company loan agreement. CSDCL accepted it has no bona fide dispute to these debts and is unable to pay them as they fall due. The last petition is in relation to AAMCL. This company was incorporated in Hong Kong. Pursuant to the facility letter granted to AAMCL by the petitioning creditor, Public Bank (Hong Kong) Limited, in May 2008, approximately US$2.6 million was due and payable to the petitioner on 20 February 2009 and AAMCL has defaulted in payment. On 23 February 2009, the petitioner made a demand for repayment of the amount outstanding under the facility letter. AAMCL has failed to pay the outstanding sum. Further, according to the public announcement issued by AAICL and AAHL dated 4 March 2009, on a liquidation of AAMCL, the return to unsecured creditors was estimated at approximately 41 cents in the dollar. I am satisfied AAMCL is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. I make a winding-up order in respect of each of the companies in the four petitions. The costs of the petitioner are to be paid out of the assets of the company concerned. (S Kwan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Miss Elizabeth Cheung, instructed by Messrs Anthony Siu & Co, for the Petitioner in HCCW Nos. 140, 141 & 142 of 2009 Mr Douglas Lam, instructed by Messrs Wilkinson &
Grist, for the Provisional Liquidators in all cases Mr William Wong, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the Petitioner in HCCW No. 165 of 2009 Messrs Clifford Chance, for the Supporting Creditors in HCCW No. 140 of 2009, OK Spring Roll Limited Partnership & Asia Aluminum Group Limited, attendance excused Messrs Allen & Overy, for the Joint Receivers in HCCW Nos. 140 & 141 of 2009 and PIK Holders in HCCW No. 141 of 2009, attendance excused Miss Vivian Yeung for the Official Receiver
PAGE - 1udk 1udk
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V ph6_ i$&~ hccw (for Susan Kwan only).dot Administrator Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.