7 May 2020
The company was ordered wound up because the debt was undisputed, the company was insolvent and it failed to provide comprehensive, compelling evidence or creditor support to justify adjournment for restructuring, and the court had sufficient Hong Kong connection to exercise its winding-up jurisdiction.
31 Mar 2020
Where a winding-up petition rests on an undisputed statutory demand and there is no written support from unsecured creditors for a proposed restructuring, and a major creditor opposes rehabilitation, the court will not adjourn the petition and will make a winding-up order.
9 Apr 2019
The court granted the validation order because there was sufficient credible material that ordinary trading was likely to be profitable and would increase the company’s assets for the benefit of creditors: management accounts showed continuing trading profit, major banking creditors (together representing a large proportion of liabilities) supported continuation, and the risks of ceasing trading (claims from trading partners and worse recovery) outweighed objections from the petitioning bank; accordingly the draft validation order was appropriate and granted.
30 Jun 2011
The action was struck out because the plaintiff failed to obtain the mandatory consent of the official receiver under s.30A(8); the official receiver declined consent pending evidence of merit and indemnity; further delay was unjustified and allowing the action risked costs being borne by the estate or public funds.
8 Feb 2006
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the winding-up petitions and discharge the provisional liquidators because the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, the provisional and conditional agreements and creditor support indicated restoration of solvency or lack of prejudice to creditors, no creditor sought substitution as petitioner, and dismissal would avoid undue costs and multiplicity of proceedings while preserving creditors' ability to pursue remedies if necessary.
9 Jan 2006
A limited validation order was appropriate because the proposed payments were confined to ordinary-course liabilities related to two near-completion projects, were likely to preserve and enhance realisations for creditors, facilitiate a commercially credible restructuring proposal (supported by some major creditors and the Official Receiver), and included monitoring safeguards; accordingly validation orders were made in the terms applied for except one employee's salary which was deferred pending further affirmation.
7 Jan 2000
The applications were dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate solvency or to show that continued day‑to‑day trading would be for the benefit of the companies' creditors as a class, relying on the KPMG review and absence of credible evidence of recovery, restructure or investor support.
20 Feb 1998
The court refused to sanction the blanket release in clause 9.3 because it would prevent the liquidators pursuing potential misfeasance claims arising from PSUK directors' bonus resolutions; sanction was granted only after clause 9.3 was amended by a proviso preserving future action by the Provisional Liquidators against persons who were directors of PSUK between 1 January 1997 and the date of the Order, and the Santander deal was approved as yielding superior creditor value compared to BNP.