Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disputed claims valuation

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2000

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP437/1999

The court applied the rights test to determine classes: internal creditors (including subsidiaries) could properly vote within the single class because their legal rights were not so dissimilar as to cause confiscation or injustice; disputed claims valued at zero in good faith may be excluded from voting; the Schemes preserved preferential and secured rights and enjoyed substantial support from independent creditors, so the court exercised its discretion to sanction all 25 Schemes (subject to stated conditions).
18 Apr 2000

Re Everpoint Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re Everpoint Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP410/2000

The court applied the rights-based test for class constitution and held that inclusion of internal creditors did not produce confiscation or injustice; disputed claims legitimately valued at nil after review may be excluded from voting; technical irregularities were waivable; given substantial independent creditor support and preservation of preferential/security rights, the court exercises its discretion to sanction the 25 Schemes, subject to fulfillment of the Stock Exchange approval condition precedent.
18 Apr 2000

Re UDL Management Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Management Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP422/2000

Applying the rights test and the court's supervisory function, the court found no dissimilarity of legal rights amounting to confiscation or injustice from allowing internal creditors to vote; preferential and secured rights were preserved; disputed claims valued at zero could be excluded from voting if reasonably assessed in good faith; the meeting results were representative with substantial independent creditor support; consequently the court granted sanction of the 25 schemes (subject to the stated condition precedent).
18 Apr 2000

Re UDL Ship Management Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Ship Management Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP414/2000

The court applied the rights test to class composition and held that internal creditors could vote in the same class because the schemes preserved preferential and secured rights and affected only unsecured portions; disputed claims legitimately valued at zero in good faith can be excluded from voting; technical irregularities were waived; given substantial independent creditor support the court exercised its discretion to sanction all 25 schemes, conditional on Stock Exchange approval.
18 Apr 2000

Re Wellful Time Ltd.

Citation

Re Wellful Time Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP420/2000

The court applied the rights-based test for class determination, found no dissimilarity of legal rights requiring separate meetings, concluded the votes (after honest valuation adjustments) reflected significant independent creditor support, held disclosure was not materially deficient, waived technical irregularities, and exercised its discretion to sanction the 25 schemes subject to the Stock Exchange approval condition.
18 Apr 2000

Re Faith On International Ltd.

Citation

Re Faith On International Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP430/2000

The court applied the rights test for class constitution, held that the meetings were not unrepresentative and that inclusion of internal creditors did not produce confiscation or injustice; disclosure and valuation of disputed claims were not shown to be made in bad faith nor likely to have materially affected votes; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to sanction the 25 Schemes of Arrangement subject to the stated condition precedent (Stock Exchange approval).
18 Apr 2000

Re UDL Contracting Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Contracting Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP417/2000

The court applied the 'rights' test to classification and found no dissimilarity of legal rights that made joint meetings impossible or unjust; disputed claims (Nishimatsu) were validly valued at HK$0 for voting after specialist review and absence of mala fides; identified meeting irregularities were technical and properly waived; statutory majorities were met (after adjustment for AHAC excess voting debt) and there remained substantial independent creditor support, so the court exercised its discretion to sanction the 25 Schemes, subject to the stated condition precedent (Stock Exchange appr…

Hong Kong Case Law

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

Re Everpoint Co. Ltd.

Re UDL Management Ltd.

Re UDL Ship Management Ltd.

Re Wellful Time Ltd.

Re Faith On International Ltd.

Re UDL Contracting Ltd.