Introduction
In the recent case of Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) overturned the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal (“CA”) below. The CFA found, contrary to the CA and Court of First Instance, that the disposition of Hsin Chong’s residual rights and interests under a joint venture agreement after the commencement of winding up was void.
Background
简介
最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，终审法院推翻了原讼法庭及上诉法庭（「上诉庭」）的裁决。与上诉庭及原讼法庭的裁决相反，终审法院裁定，于新昌开始清盘后出售其在合营协议项下剩余权利及权益的交易是无效的。
背景
新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）于2013年11月订立一份合营协议（「合营协议」），以成立及经营一间合营公司（「合营公司」）。合营公司于2016年6月获得一项大型政府项目合约，其中该公司占65% 权益，Build King占余下35% 权益。
该公司于2017/2018年度开始面临财政困难。2018年8月27日，该公司被入禀清盘，导致该公司的银行帐户被冻结。
Introduction
In the recent case of Chau Cheok Wa v CT Environmental Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2602, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) reiterated that for appointment of provisional liquidators pending determination of a winding-up petition, an applicant must establish that there is a good prima facie case for winding-up order at the hearing of the petition and it is right that a provisional liquidator should be appointed in light of the circumstances of the case.
Background
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2361, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign incorporated listed company, the Court of First Instance revisited the 2nd core requirement and considered whether the possibility of the court making an order to compel the directors of the company to execute the documents necessary for the liquidators to take control of the company’s BVI subsidiaries would be sufficient to be considered as a real possibility of benefit to the petitioner.
簡介
我們於7月的清盤及重組文章中，介紹了中國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港律政司司長於2021年5月14日簽署《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》（「合作機制」），當中訂明了香港法院與深圳、上海及廈門三個試點地區的中級人民法院相互認可破產的程序和人員安排的具體程序。
Introduction
“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”
– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)
INTRODUCTION
簡介
最近在Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981一案中，上訴法院澄清，在決定是否應撤銷破產令時，法院既可考慮在破產令發出之前的事實，也可考慮在破產令發出之後的事實。要成功申請撤銷破產令，申請人須證明涉及與先前法院席前證據有重大差異的特殊情況，作為推翻破產令的充分理據。
背景
本案是就一項於2020年8月3日發出的破產令（「該破產令」）提出的上訴。呈請人是一間公司，其銀行帳戶被破產人偷去或挪用了749,000美元。於2020年2月27日，呈請人就上述金額向破產人發出法定要求償債書，但不獲還款。在2020年8月3日進行的呈請聆訊上，破產人口頭上表示他能夠償還該債務，因為：
- 他可將其於張慶植會計師行有限公司的50% 權益出售，估計約值600萬元；及
- 他可能會收到若干其他資金。
法官不信納，並認為沒有證據顯示破產人能償還債務，因此發出了該破產令。
Introduction
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981, the Court of Appeal clarified that in determining whether a bankruptcy order should be rescinded, the court is entitled to take into account facts both before or after the bankruptcy order. To succeed, an applicant for rescission has to show exceptional circumstances, involving a material difference to what was before the court earlier, to justify the overturning of the bankruptcy order.
Background