15 Oct 2021
There was a good prima facie case that it was expedient in the public interest to wind up the company and there was urgent necessity to appoint provisional liquidators to preserve and manage assets, respond to regulators and litigations, and prevent dissipation; accordingly the court appointed provisional liquidators and dispensed with a cross‑undertaking in damages.
24 Mar 2021
There was a strong prima facie case for winding up in the public interest under s.212 SFO because the company was paralysed after the death of its sole director, posed a real risk of unauthorised persons misrepresenting control and misusing records, and required protection of investors; accordingly the court continued the ex parte appointment of Chan Pui Sze and Mak Hau Yin as joint and several provisional liquidators pending determination of the petition to preserve records, protect investors and maintain the status quo.
6 Dec 2019
R firm had acted as financial advisers to subsidiaries and should have disclosed that under s262D, but the prior limited engagements did not give rise to a material conflict of interest; accordingly Mr K and Mr T were fit for appointment as provisional liquidators provided they file new disclosure statements.
27 Jul 2010
The court found that Mr Nedderman had effectively abandoned his office by leaving Hong Kong and failing to make arrangements for the continuance of the liquidations; that abandonment constituted sufficient cause under s.196(1) to remove him and his co-liquidators, to disallow his fees for failure to carry out his duties, to require delivery up of books and documents, to permit filing of disbursements within specified periods, to appoint BDO Limited nominees as joint and several provisional liquidators or liquidators, and to order costs of $3,085 against him.
27 Jul 2010
The court found that Mr Nedderman had effectively abandoned his office by leaving Hong Kong without arranging continuation of his practice, thereby prejudicing creditors; this constituted 'cause shown' under s.196(1) and warranted removal, disallowance of his fees, appointment of competent replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators (BDO Limited), delivery of books and accounts and an award of costs of $3,085 to the Official Receiver in respect of each application.
27 Jul 2010
Mr Nedderman’s unexplained departure from Hong Kong and failure to provide arrangements for the continuation of liquidations constituted sufficient 'cause shown' under s.196(1) of the Companies Ordinance to remove him (and, where appropriate, his co‑liquidators), to disallow his fees for failing properly to carry out his office, and to appoint capable replacements so as to protect creditors' interests; ancillary orders for delivery of books and filing of disbursement schedules and costs against him were justified.
27 Jul 2010
The court found cause shown under s.196(1) because Mr Nedderman's apparent departure from Hong Kong and failure to make operational arrangements prejudiced the liquidation and creditors; accordingly the court removed Mr Nedderman and his co-liquidator where appropriate, disallowed his fees, appointed BDO staff as replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators, ordered delivery of books and permitted filing of a schedule of disbursements within prescribed timeframes, and ordered costs of $3,085 against Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010
The court found that Mr Nedderman’s apparent departure from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements to permit the continuation of liquidations constituted good cause under s.196(1) to remove him; his fees were disallowed because his failure to carry out his office properly prejudiced creditors; replacement provisional liquidators were appointed and ancillary orders for delivery of books and filing of disbursements and costs were made.
27 Jul 2010
The court found that Mr Nedderman’s apparent permanent departure from Hong Kong and his failure to make arrangements to enable the liquidation functions to continue constituted sufficient 'cause shown' under s.196(1) to remove him; his fees were disallowed because his failure to carry out his office properly prejudiced creditors; BDO appointees were ordered in his place and orders made for delivery of books, filing of disbursements schedule and payment of Official Receiver costs of $3,085 per application by Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010
Mr Nedderman's apparent abandonment of Hong Kong and failure to put in place arrangements for continuity amounted to sufficient cause under s.196(1) for removal; in the circumstances removal and replacement with BDO nominees was necessary to protect the interests of creditors, his fees were disallowed for failure properly to perform his office, orders for delivery of books and for filing disbursements were appropriate, and costs were awarded against him.