Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Regulating order

  • 17 Apr 2025

    RE CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION)

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1638
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW220/2022

    The court held that the eligibility requirement for membership of a committee of inspection in a compulsory winding up is prescribed by the statutory provision requiring a COI to consist of creditors and contributories (pre-2016 s.207(1), now s.206(5)); in that context "creditor" means a person holding a legal right to the debt or liability (limited, for voting and COI purposes, to non-contingent/ascertained creditors). A regulating order under ss.227A-227E does not displace this eligibility requirement. Ultimate Holders who hold only an economic or beneficial interest in global notes and lac…

  • 7 Feb 2025

    RE PHYSICAL BEAUTY & FITNESS HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 604
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW627/2024

    Both companies were insolvent on the evidence of statutory demands and adjusted balance sheets; a usual winding-up order was appropriate. Provisional liquidators were appointed over Physical BVI to secure and receive sale proceeds under the SPAs pending investigation of ownership and allocation because the assets and proceeds were at risk and the court accepted Luk’s undertaking but refused to discharge it. A regulating order under ss.227A and 227B was justified to appoint the PLs as liquidators of Physical HK for reasons of continuity, efficiency and because they were fit and supported by ma…

  • 7 Feb 2025

    RE PHYSICAL HEALTH CENTRE HONG KONG LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 604
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW629/2024

    Usual winding-up orders were made because the Companies were insolvent as shown by statutory demands and the balance sheet and cashflow positions; provisional liquidators were justified to protect sale proceeds under SPAs that involved assets of subsidiaries and where the ownership and receipt of proceeds were in doubt; the director’s undertaking was not discharged absent unforeseeable change; a regulating order was appropriate to appoint the PLs as liquidators of Physical HK to continue investigations and protect creditors.

  • 4 Jun 2021

    RE GOLD-FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 1674
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW172/2019

    A regulating order should be granted and the provisional liquidators appointed as joint and several liquidators because convening quorate meetings is impracticable, the Official Receiver raised no substantive objection, and the alleged conflict (intercompany debt of approximately HK$626,000 representing about 0.2% of liabilities) is theoretical and insufficient to bar the appointment given the limited assets and no realistic prospect of further realisations.

  • 29 Mar 2021

    RE HUA HAN HEALTH INDUSTRY HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 793
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW110/2019

    The court granted a regulating order under s227A/227B because it was satisfied that holding first meetings was impractical and uneconomical, that the four major creditors representing over 99% of creditor claims supported the JPL, that the JPL had conducted substantial investigative work and continuity and confidentiality justified dispensing with meetings and appointing the JPL as liquidators, and that constituting a committee of inspection of the four major creditors was fair and in creditors’ interests.

  • 12 Mar 2021

    RE HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 559
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW239/2018

    The application for a regulating order was dismissed because the court was not satisfied it was right to deprive creditors of the statutory opportunity to convene and vote at a first meeting: two significant creditors (HSBC and WKCDA) had legitimate, non‑frivolous objections based on procedural failings by the Provisional Liquidators and prior judicial criticisms; the applicants failed to demonstrate that a remote meeting was considered or infeasible; allowing creditors to canvass and choose liquidators was required in the interests of creditors, so dispensing with the first meeting and appoi…

  • 1 Feb 2021

    RE FOUNDER INFORMATION (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 311
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW350/2020

    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…

  • 29 Nov 2017

    BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. J.V. FITNESS LTD

    Citation
    BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. J.V. FITNESS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW209/2016

    Despite the omission to disclose Mr Tang's contempt finding, the court appointed Ms Hou and Mr Kan as joint and several liquidators and made the regulating order because the liquidation was sufficiently advanced and the Official Receiver did not object; however the court held that the omission constituted a failure of the duty of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application and that Mr Tang would not have been appointed in light of the contempt finding.

  • 19 Jan 2012

    METROPLEX BERHAD v. FERNANDO GASPER AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    METROPLEX BERHAD v. FERNANDO GASPER AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV58/2011

    The appellant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving actual or apparent bias or dereliction of duty; the liquidators' actions were reasonable and justified by the exigencies (including actions by PAGCOR, SBMA and the Philippine rehabilitation process), the regulating order remained justified given the stage of the liquidation, and the court will not disturb the judge's discretionary decision to retain the liquidators; respondent liquidators to provide creditor report and costs taxed on a common fund basis.

  • 8 Feb 2011

    LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LTD v. METROPLEX BERHAD

    Citation
    LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LTD v. METROPLEX BERHAD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW1139/2004

    The judge held that Metroplex's application to remove the liquidators was final in nature because it raised the substantive issue of the incumbent liquidators' fitness, independent of the liquidation itself; therefore the court had jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security for costs. Exercising that discretion, and having regard to Metroplex's foreign domicile, lack of assets in Hong Kong and doubts about solvency arising from a Malaysian provisional liquidator order, the court ordered Metroplex to provide security for costs of HK$386,000 and awarded costs against Metroplex (80%).