Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suspension of trading

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2021

UP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) (FOR RESTRUCTURING PURPOSES)) v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL949/2021

Leave refused because none of the grounds were reasonably arguable: the Company had sufficient notice and transitional relief regarding Rule 13.24 and received ample remedial time; LAC questions were relevant and adequately answered so no reasonable apprehension of bias; the combination of written submissions and focused oral hearing afforded a fair opportunity to be heard; the listing status is not property protected by BL6/105 in the manner alleged; and delisting after exhausted remedial and review processes was proportionate and within the Exchange's regulatory discretion.
8 Dec 2020

CHINA TRENDS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3045
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL818/2020

The GEM Listing (Review) Committee lawfully applied Rule 17.26 as a qualitative, company-specific test by asking whether the company's level of operations or assets were sufficient to warrant continued listing; it reasonably concluded the company failed both limbs, took relevant considerations into account, provided adequate reasons and did not act irrationally or breach procedural fairness; no legitimate expectation arose; the judicial review is dismissed on the merits.
19 Mar 2020

CHINA DING YI FENG HOLDINGS LTD v. HUANG QINGZHAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP719/2019

The court held that the Company failed to pay the first Interest Payment on 31 March 2016 in the manner required by Conditions 4 and 5, that the default continued beyond the 5‑day cure period so a payment default under Condition 8(i) occurred and Huang was entitled to require early redemption (notice effective 16 August 2016; sums due 1 September 2016). Conversely, Clause 2.2 was a warranty given as at the subscription/completion period and did not survive beyond the Completion Date, so the 2019 SFC suspension did not breach Clause 2.2 and did not give rise to an event of default under Condit…
30 Jun 2016

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1618/2016

The summons for interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a viable private cause of action against the Stock Exchange and other defendants, lacked standing in most respects, produced no evidence of immediate irreparable harm, public disclosure of the expert's disqualification mitigated need for court intervention, and the orders sought were overly sweeping and disproportionate to the circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

UP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) (FOR RESTRUCTURING PURPOSES)) v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

CHINA TRENDS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

CHINA DING YI FENG HOLDINGS LTD v. HUANG QINGZHAN

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS