31 Oct 2016
Contributories failed to produce a concrete, signable restructuring proposal after prolonged opportunity; provisional liquidation had been misused as a de facto moratorium; in the interests of creditors the court must wind the companies up and continue the provisional liquidators in office.
14 Jun 2004
There was no viable restructuring proposal before the court and no evidence of in-principle support from the required statutory majority of creditors; the investor had terminated the earlier restructuring agreement and the Stock Exchange had imposed conditions making resumption unlikely. On that basis the court was satisfied winding-up orders should be made for each company.
21 Feb 2000
The adjournment was refused and winding‑up orders made because the restructuring plan lacked essential support from the principal creditor(s) (notably SCB) and the petitioner opposed withdrawal of the petitions; with pivotal creditor opposition there was no realistic prospect of rescue and further adjournment would merely increase costs.
21 Feb 2000
Because key creditors (notably Standard Chartered and the petitioner) opposed the restructuring and the proposal depended on unanimous lender agreement and future, unformulated documentation, an adjournment would be futile and costly; accordingly the court refused the adjournment and made winding‑up orders.
8 Nov 1999
Adjournment applications were refused because the proposed restructuring plans were speculative and nascent, parties had ample prior opportunity to prepare evidence and proposals (including months of prior discussion), and the proposals depended on cooperation from petitioning banks and the joint venture partner which was unlikely; however leave was granted to file specific late affirmations subject to an undertaking.
19 Jul 1999
The judge held that the debts were undisputed and substantial, the evidence of a loan or restructuring was speculative and incapable of discharging the debts (and in any event the proposed loan could not be applied to repay the petitioner due to a custodian agreement), there was no realistic prospect of repayment and no basis for further adjournment; accordingly compulsory winding-up orders were made and the petitioners' costs were ordered as liquidation expenses.