1 Nov 2012
The court concluded the petitioner was justified in refusing the debtor's repayment proposal because the proposed repayment period produced unreasonable delay given the size of the indebtedness, the debtor's explanations and disclosures were unsatisfactory and there was no evidence of sincere attempts to pay; accordingly the petition was allowed and a bankruptcy order was made.
4 Sept 2009
The court found the debtors' proposal was too uncertain and qualified by contingent future events, did not constitute a proper offer that could be accepted to require dismissal, the debtors had not provided full and frank disclosure, and the petitioner's refusal fell within the range of reasonable positions of a hypothetical creditor; therefore s.6D(3) did not oblige dismissal and bankruptcy orders were appropriate.
27 Aug 2009
The petitioner's refusal was not unreasonable because the repayment proposal lacked sufficient certainty and enforceability: the sale agreement's balance was conditional and not guaranteed, the proceeds would be received by a third party (Sino Dynamic) with no binding undertaking to pay the petitioner, the debtor failed to provide timely full disclosure of finances and liabilities, and there was real doubt as to the debtor's ability to make the proposed monthly payments; accordingly section 6D(3) was not satisfied and a bankruptcy order was made.
23 Mar 2007
Because the debt to the petitioner had been settled, the Official Receiver indicated no need for investigation, and the company appeared solvent, the court exercised its discretion to rescind the unperfected winding-up order and dismiss the petition, and held the Official Receiver's assessed costs of HK$20,000 reasonable and deductible from the petitioner's deposit with any shortfall (HK$7,850) being recoverable from the company.
8 Feb 2006
Given the comprehensive settlement between the shareholders, the documented creditor support and conditional agreements with major employers that would restore solvency, the court concluded that dismissal of the winding-up petitions and discharge of the provisional liquidators was appropriate; creditors' interests were not shown to be prejudiced and they retain the ability to petition in future if unpaid.
8 Feb 2006
The court dismissed the four winding-up petitions and discharged the provisional liquidators because the petitioning shareholder(s) withdrew support, there was credible evidence of settlement and material creditor support (including conditional settlements with major employers) rendering the companies effectively solvent or likely to result in full payment, no creditor sought substitution as petitioner, and appropriate protections and undertakings were given so creditors are not prejudiced; consequential orders to be settled on paper.
8 Feb 2006
The petitions were dismissed and provisional liquidators discharged because the court was satisfied there was a bona fide settlement between the shareholders which, together with conditional settlements with major employers and the provisional liquidators' own reports indicating likely solvency or sufficient recoveries, meant creditors' interests would not be prejudiced and dismissal would avoid wasteful costs and multiplicity of proceedings.
28 Jul 2004
The stay under s9(5) was removed and the petitions dismissed because there was a material change of circumstances (no realistic prospect of criminal prosecution and substantial unexplained delay in civil proceedings), the prolonged retention of security and stay caused significant prejudice to the debtors, the alleged debt was disputed and partially covered by payment into court, and the proper forum to resolve disputed liability is the civil court rather than the bankruptcy jurisdiction.
28 Jul 2004
The stay under section 9(5) was removed and the petitions dismissed because there was a material change of circumstances (no realistic prospect of criminal prosecution and substantial, unexplained delay in commencing and prosecuting the civil proceedings) causing prejudice to the debtors; the security paid into court covered the alleged indebtedness and the disputes as to liability should be resolved by the civil court, not by continuing to secure relief by way of a stay in the bankruptcy forum.
6 Jun 2002
The court found that s.33(1)(b) was satisfied because provable debts and expenses had been paid or secured; no creditor appeared or opposed after advertisement; accordingly the bankruptcy order was annulled and the petition dismissed; costs were ordered as agreed and the deposit returned.