Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Corporate rescue

  • 17 May 2007

    RE PLUS HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    RE PLUS HOLDINGS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW612/2006

    The court found the petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case for winding up, the company is insolvent and its HKEX listing status is in imminent jeopardy such that appointment of provisional liquidators to protect that asset and to engage independent professionals to attempt a viable resumption proposal falls within the permissible exercise of s193 powers; Re Legend was distinguishable on its facts, and the balance of convenience, urgency and limited prejudice to creditors justified appointment on undertaking as to damages.

  • 1 Mar 2006

    RE LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LTD

    Citation
    RE LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV210/2005

    The Court held that (1) the petitioner qualified as an Eligible Transferee because it was proven to be an entity that lends money and thus had locus to present the winding-up petition; (2) the petition was not plainly an abuse of process; and (3) the judge below did not err in refusing to appoint provisional liquidators because the traditional basis for such appointment (assets in jeopardy/preservation of assets) had not been made out and active Philippine rehabilitation proceedings and practical obstacles meant appointment would not serve its intended protective purpose; accordingly the appe…

  • 3 Jun 2002

    RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

    Citation
    RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW164/2002

    The court is bound by the Court of Appeal in Bank Negara Indonesia that it has no jurisdiction to grant a stay of winding-up proceedings on the company's application; the two added applicants as alleged creditors have locus to apply under s.209 but the evidence failed to establish special circumstances to depart from the established practice of not granting stays pending appeal (the restructuring proposal was preliminary, major creditors and the Official Receiver were not properly engaged), therefore the stay application must be dismissed.

  • 24 Apr 2002

    RE KEVIEW TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LTD.

    Citation
    RE KEVIEW TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW1123/2001

    The court holds that under s.193(3) it has discretion to extend the powers of provisional liquidators to participate in restructuring where it is in the creditors' interests, there is substantial creditor support, no evidence requiring immediate winding-up for investigations, and the petitioner retains locus to seek winding-up if the rescue fails.