Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Companies ordinance s116b

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2005

RE JOYCE BOUTIQUE LTD

Citation

RE JOYCE BOUTIQUE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP248/2005

The court confirmed the reduction because (1) the affected non‑voting deferred shareholders had given informed consent satisfying equitable treatment; (2) the scheme and its effects were properly explained; (3) creditors were adequately safeguarded by JBHL’s written agreement to postpone its claims and by the restriction on the bank fixed deposit which exceeded the aggregate liabilities to other creditors and provisions; and (4) the reduction had a discernible purpose—elimination of accumulated losses to permit future dividends. The court therefore approved and ordered the reduction under the…
23 Mar 1998

In re Sakura Finance Hongkong Ltd.

Citation

In re Sakura Finance Hongkong Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1033/1998

The court confirmed the reduction because audited and management accounts showed assets materially exceeding liabilities, principal creditors gave revised consents postponing their claims to the effective date, the Company undertook that the US$11,000,000 would only be paid from proceeds of specified certificates of deposit, and the auditors did not require provisions; on that basis non‑consenting creditors would not be prejudiced.