Introduction

In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).

Background

On 26 April 2022, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a decision by the joint official liquidators (“JOLs”) of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the “Company”) to return (or procure the return of) certain payments held by or on behalf of the Company referable to one of its segregated portfolios, Premier Assurance Segregated Portfolio (“PASP”), to the respective payors on the basis that such sums were paid by mistake.

Introduction

On 22 February 2022, Doyle J made a winding up order and appointed joint official liquidators in respect of GTI Holdings Limited (Company), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The winding up order was unopposed and Doyle J was satisfied that the company was insolvent. Nevertheless, in a judgment dated 15 March 2022,  Doyle J articulated the reasons for his hesitancy in making that winding up order.

Background

We previously wrote about the Court’s attitude to liquidators’ applications for directions on matters arising in a compulsory winding up (i.e., by the court) under section 200 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap.

We have recently experienced an increase in mandates concerning disputes between shareholders and the Board of a Cayman company, which in many cases, leads to a shareholder applying to appoint provisional liquidators over the Company on a just and equitable basis. Therefore, we considered it important to remind those considering this remedy of the evidentiary hurdles they need to overcome to exercise it successfully.

In brief

On 6 May 2022, the Honorable Madam Justice Linda Chan granted a petition for the winding-up (in Hong Kong) of Up Energy Development Group Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda.

A Hong Kong court has stayed a petition presented on the just and equitable ground to arbitration, on the basis of arbitration agreements found within what the petitioner described as quasi-partnership agreements formed in 2007. The court also dismissed claims that the appointed arbitrator lacked the requisite qualifications and experience, and that a stay would lead to further costs and duplication of resources.

Introduction

1. Covid-19 has posed unprecedented challenges worldwide. Social isolation, confinement measures, spousal hygiene and money (or lack thereof due to unemployment) have been sources of many soured relationships. As such, the pandemic’s impact on people’s personal relationships and finances have become inadvertent fuel for divorce and bankruptcy cases.

2. It is no surprise that local law firms are handling an uptick in divorce cases and receiving more enquiries related to divorce.

簡介

最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英國高等法院（「法院」）基於一個比較罕見的理由頒令將一家上市公司清盤——失去公司基礎（loss of substratum），即公司放棄其主要宗旨和目的。

背景

Klimvest Plc（「該公司」）於2019年1月出售其業務及資產，其後其唯一重大資產為約800萬英鎊的現金儲備。出售資產後，該公司的最大股東Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辯人」）要求該公司動用出售所得款項作出新投資，而非將在清盤中分派予股東。

Eric Duneau先生（「呈請人」）要求根據英國《1986年無力償債法》第122(1)(g) 條頒令該公司清盤，認為由於該公司已失去其目的或基礎，將該公司清盤屬公正公平。第一答辯人反對呈請，辯稱（其中包括）該公司並無失去其目的或基礎，因為該公司在出售資產前實質上已成為一間控股投資公司，公司的目的仍可透過該投資實現。

失去公司基礎的測試

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch), the English High Court (”Court”) ordered the winding up of a public company on a relatively uncommon ground - loss of substratum, i.e. – the abandonment of a company’s main object and purpose.

Background