Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restructuring agreement

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2021

RE NIMBLE HOLDINGS CO LTD formerly known as THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW177/2011

Clause 3.2 did not include the Scheme Administrators' costs and, independently, the sanctioned scheme expressly and separately defined and treated scheme administration costs apart from restructuring costs; therefore the Company cannot recover the Scheme Administrators' fees from the funds held in court and the summons for payment out is dismissed.
26 Mar 2020

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW352/2014

The summonses to have the petition and the High Court actions tried together were dismissed because the petition is substantially further advanced, the central issue in the petition is discrete, the High Court actions involve additional issues and are not progressed, and resolution of the petition is likely to narrow issues in the actions; accordingly it was not sensible to vacate the petition trial dates to await the actions.
21 Sept 2009

SKY LEADER INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

SKY LEADER INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW638/2006

Adjourn the winding-up petition for Ocean Grand Holdings Limited to allow the restructuring and Stock Exchange resumption process to proceed because there was a credible restructuring plan and ongoing regulatory review; make winding-up orders for Hing Yip Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited, OG Development Company Limited and Sky Leader Industries Limited because the provisional liquidators established insolvency and absence of realistic restructuring prospects; order petitioners' costs to be paid from each company's assets.
21 Sept 2009

RE OCEAN GRAND HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE OCEAN GRAND HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW382/2006

The court adjourned the petition against the listed Ocean Grand Holdings because a realistic restructuring process was under way with regulatory review and imminent procedural steps, and granted winding-up orders for Hing Yip, OG Development and Sky Leader because the provisional liquidators proved each was insolvent and no restructuring route existed; petitioners costs to be paid from each company's assets.
21 Sept 2009

OG DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Citation

OG DEVELOPMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW637/2006

The court granted a nine‑month adjournment for Ocean Grand Holdings because the provisional liquidators demonstrated a bona fide restructuring process and reasonable timelines for Stock Exchange review and subsequent scheme implementation, and ordered the winding up of Hing Yip, OG Development and Sky Leader because evidence established their insolvency and there was no viable restructuring; costs to be paid out of each company's assets.
25 Oct 2007

RE TA THERAPEUTICS LTD

Citation

RE TA THERAPEUTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1418/2007

The petition is granted because the proposed reduction serves a clear commercial purpose (implementation of the restructuring agreement), the position of creditors is adequately protected by the Company's undertaking to deposit a Trust Amount equal to projected creditor liabilities into a segregated account and by sufficient available cash and assets, and there are special circumstances to dispense with section 59(2), therefore the court properly exercises its discretion to confirm the reduction.
12 Oct 2006

ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV312/2005

The Court of Appeal held that the Bank did not breach any fiduciary duty beyond the limited duty imposed by the contractual matrix (power of attorney and mortgagee rights), that the sale achieved market value and was properly marketed, and that there was no illegitimate pressure amounting to economic duress nor undue influence; accordingly the trial judge's findings were set aside and the plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
31 Oct 2005

RE TUNG HUI SHYAN t/a FAIREX TRADING CO

Citation

RE TUNG HUI SHYAN t/a FAIREX TRADING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4599/2005

The petitioner proved the debt and service of the statutory demand; the debtor failed to file evidence in opposition and withdrew opposition at hearing; third‑party security and parallel proceedings were irrelevant to the debtor's personal liability, therefore a bankruptcy order was properly made against the debtor.