Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Modification of scheme

  • 6 Jun 2022

    RE RARE EARTH MAGNESIUM TECHNOLOGY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1686
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2227/2021

    The court sanctioned the scheme because the Scheme complied with statutory requirements (proper convening, adequate explanatory statement, correct single-class composition, requisite voting majorities) and provided materially better recoveries than liquidation; the proposed post-meeting amendments improved creditor recovery and did not prejudice creditors, and the scheme is likely effective internationally because the affected debts are governed by Hong Kong law. Accordingly the draft sanction order was made and the winding-up petition was to be dismissed, with costs of the petition to be det…

  • 21 Jul 2006

    RE UNIVERSAL DOCKYARD LTD

    Citation
    RE UNIVERSAL DOCKYARD LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP413/2000

    The court sanctioned the modifications because proper procedures were followed (circular to creditors, advertised notice, convened meeting), a substantial majority of creditors (94.7% by claim value) voted in favour, and the liquidators indicated consent, thereby satisfying the requirements for sanction under the Companies Ordinance and established practice.

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP423/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications as they fairly reflected the views of the consenting creditors and disclosure was adequate for sanction for the Company and 23 subsidiaries, but refused to sanction Dockyard's modification because a company in liquidation requires the liquidator's consent; further, because the Disputed Assets had not been transferred or received into the Scheme they remain assets of Dockyard in its winding up and are not subject to a trust for scheme creditors.

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP416/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications for the Company and 23 subsidiaries because the meetings were properly constituted, the requisite majorities approved and the explanatory material was sufficiently fair and adequate in the circumstances; the Modifications were enabling and likely to benefit creditors. However the court lacked jurisdiction to sanction modifications affecting Universal Dockyard Limited while its liquidators had not consented, so the Dockyard petition was adjourned. On the liquidators' summons the court held the disputed Unencumbered Assets and Accounts Receivable…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP417/2000

    Court sanctioned the proposed modifications to the schemes for the Company and 23 of its subsidiaries but declined to sanction Dockyard's scheme modifications without the liquidators' consent; the Disputed Assets (certain Unencumbered Assets and Accounts Receivable of Dockyard not vested in Newco or realised at the commencement of liquidation) were held to constitute assets of Dockyard available to the liquidation because no trust had been constituted in respect of them by virtue of the Scheme absent actual vesting/receipt; consent of the liquidator is required to vary a scheme affecting a co…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP431/2000

    The court sanctioned the Modifications in respect of the Company and 23 Scheme Participating Subsidiaries because the meetings were properly constituted, the explanatory statement was sufficiently fair, and the result fairly reflected creditors' views; however the court has no jurisdiction to sanction modifications as regards Dockyard without the consent of its liquidators, and because the Disputed Assets had not been vested in Newco or otherwise transferred at the commencement of Dockyard's winding up they constitute assets of Dockyard to be dealt with in the liquidation rather than trust as…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP413/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications for the Company and 23 of its Scheme Participating Subsidiaries because the meeting was properly constituted, creditors were sufficiently informed and the result fairly reflected creditors' views; however the court lacked jurisdiction to sanction modifications to Universal Dockyard Limited's scheme without the liquidators' consent, and the Disputed Assets (certain receivables and other assets not transferred to Newco) were held to constitute assets of Dockyard for the purposes of its winding up and not to be dealt with under the Scheme trust (tr…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP411/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications in relation to the Company and 23 Scheme Participating Subsidiaries because the meetings were properly constituted, creditor approval fairly reflected creditor views, disclosure was not so deficient as to vitiate consent, and the Modifications were a legitimate pragmatic attempt to achieve recovery. However, the court refused to sanction modifications affecting Universal Dockyard Limited because the liquidators had not consented and the court had no jurisdiction to sanction a variation of the scheme as to Dockyard without that consent. The court…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP420/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications as to the Company and 23 of its subsidiaries because the meeting result fairly reflected creditor views, disclosure was not so inadequate as to vitiate consent, and the Modifications were put forward in good faith as enabling measures to maximize recoveries. The court held it had no jurisdiction to sanction modifications affecting Universal Dockyard Limited while its liquidators withheld consent; the disputed Unencumbered Assets and Accounts Receivable of Dockyard had not been transferred or vested in Newco or the scheme administrator at the com…

  • 7 Jun 2006

    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE UDL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP410/2000

    The court sanctioned the proposed Modifications for the Company and 23 of the Scheme Participating Subsidiaries because the meetings were properly constituted, the explanatory statement was sufficiently fair, and the voting result fairly reflected creditors' views; however the court lacked jurisdiction to sanction modifications affecting Universal Dockyard Limited without the liquidators' consent and held that the Disputed Assets (Unencumbered Assets and Accounts Receivable not already transferred) constitute assets of Dockyard for the purpose of its winding up and are not held on trust for s…