2 Apr 2025
The company is grossly insolvent and has failed, after more than a year, to produce a concrete, viable restructuring proposal or evidence that the proposed UK investor has the funds or that the major creditor CS will accept the debt acquisition; consequently there is no valid ground to adjourn further and a winding up order was appropriate.
29 Aug 2022
The Court exercised its discretion under s.327(3)(b) CWUO and made a winding-up order because the Company was insolvent, its asserted restructuring was unsubstantiated and did not involve unsecured creditors, there was a real possibility of benefit to the petitioner through investigation and recovery (given the Company's Hong Kong listing, principal place of business and Hong Kong-resident directors), and the Company's jurisdictional challenge lacked merit. Directors’ failure to cause timely liquidation and to stop meritless opposition exposed them to potential personal costs liability.
19 Jan 2022
The Shearman Parties lacked sufficient interest to invoke the statutory jurisdiction to remove the liquidators because their position was effectively adverse to the estate and they were not unsecured creditors entitled to participate in distribution; binding authorities (Deloitte v Johnson and Li Xiao Yi) restrict standing to persons with a legitimate interest (creditors/contributories), therefore the originating summons was dismissed for want of standing.
2 Dec 2021
The court granted the winding up order because the debt was due and undisputed, the Company was insolvent, the proposed restructuring was not feasible or sufficiently supported (only 48% by value including secured claims and lacking required regulatory approvals and audited accounts), the company's financial position had deteriorated under PLs, and the three core requirements for a Hong Kong winding up order were satisfied.
31 Oct 2016
Because the contributories repeatedly failed to produce a concrete, signable restructuring agreement and the provisional liquidation jurisdiction was being misused as a de facto moratorium to the detriment of creditors, the court must make winding-up orders for the companies and allow the provisional liquidators to continue in office to protect and realise assets for creditors.
10 Nov 2014
Applicant failed to prove good cause to remove the Official Receiver: the Official Receiver reasonably refrained from litigating or asserting Mainland interests without essential documents, statement of affairs or cooperation from key persons (notably Mr Tsoi Snr and Mainland lawyers); absence of evidence and active non‑cooperation justified her investigatory stance and refusal to commence substantive Mainland proceedings; dismissal of summons was appropriate with costs ordered against applicant.
25 Feb 2013
The Assignment was a gratuitous disposition unsupported by consideration, made at a time when Chan was insolvent or such disposition rendered him insolvent, the Property being his sole asset and Chan owing the plaintiff HK$500,000; in the absence of any explanation the irresistible inference of intent to defraud creditors arises under the rule in Freeman v Pope and section 60 is engaged, rendering the Assignment voidable and to be set aside.
1 Feb 2010
Winding-up order granted because the petitioner demonstrated an undisputed debt of HK$6,415,103.39 and the company failed to present a viable scheme of arrangement or any material financial evidence to rebut insolvency; the court exercised its discretion to make the winding-up order and only partially awarded costs to the petitioner.
6 Feb 2009
The stay was refused because the liquidators' offer to hold any surplus did not provide Shiranne with the means to realise its equitable lien without a court order; the liquidators failed to rebut Shiranne's entitlement with particularised allegations of fraud and the prioritisation and value of the bank's mortgage were speculative, so the court ordered the proceedings to continue to determine Shiranne's rights.
28 Jan 2005
The Company is insolvent and unable to pay the unsatisfied US judgment; the petitioner is entitled to enforce the judgment by winding-up; allegations of ulterior motive, prejudice to US Chapter 11 proceedings or risk to the Imation Action were unsupported or speculative; accordingly the court must not exercise its discretion to refuse winding-up and must order compulsory winding-up.