19 Aug 2025
Debt was undisputed and statutory demand unmet so the Company was deemed insolvent; the Company failed to produce a concrete restructuring proposal with requisite creditor support (notably AHG holding 37.6%) and made no case that further adjournment would be of utility; therefore the petitioner was entitled to an immediate winding up order.
28 Oct 2024
Because the statutory demands were not complied with and the debt was admitted, the petitioner was entitled to winding‑up orders; the companies failed to discharge the burden to demonstrate a concrete restructuring proposal supported by funding, a timetable and requisite creditor majorities, and failed to provide transparent financial information; therefore no further adjournment was justified and the usual winding‑up orders were made.
11 May 2022
The court refused to dismiss the petition but exercised its discretion to grant a short adjournment to allow the creditors' scheme meeting to proceed because there was a realistic possibility that restructuring could benefit creditors and because, on the evidence including the Company's liquidation analysis and recoverable intercompany receivables, the Petitioner satisfied the second core requirement for an unregistered company; a validation order was granted limited to paid-up shares and costs were ordered nisi for the Petitioner.
3 May 2021
Because the facility letter reserved the Bank's unrestricted right to demand repayment and the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme does not legally prevent the Bank from recovering from the debtor (it only provides an 80% contingent guarantee), the company had no bona fide defence on substantial grounds and the court made the winding up order.
1 Feb 2021
The Company failed to satisfy the evidential threshold to justify an adjournment: its evidence was insufficient on feasibility, independent creditor support and protection of the material onshore claim. Given the petitioner's proved debt, insolvency and credible risk of dissipation of the RMB5.25 billion claim in the Mainland restructuring, the court exercised its discretion to refuse an adjournment and made the normal winding-up order while declining to make a regulating order at this stage; appointment of specified liquidators was made conditional on the Official Receiver applying under s19…
22 Jan 2021
The court ordered immediate winding-up because the petitioning creditor's debt was undisputed, the company was insolvent, the proposed restructuring lacked compelling, proportionate evidence of feasibility and of restoring medium‑term viability, and there was no substantial, well‑founded creditor opposition to justify adjournment.
31 Aug 2020
The company failed to file evidence disputing the debt and did not meet established prerequisites for adjournment to pursue restructuring; accordingly the court made the normal winding-up order.
7 May 2020
The company was ordered wound up because the debt was undisputed, the company was insolvent and it failed to provide comprehensive, compelling evidence or creditor support to justify adjournment for restructuring, and the court had sufficient Hong Kong connection to exercise its winding-up jurisdiction.
2 Dec 2019
The court made the winding-up order because the provisional liquidators' report and lack of credible restructuring proposals or supporting appearances meant there was no justification to adjourn; therefore the petitioner's request for a winding-up order was granted.
2 Sept 2019
The company failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds; its cross-claims were fabricated or unsubstantiated and implausible, no credible evidence of a restructuring proposal was produced, and therefore the Petition succeeded and a winding-up order was made.