簡介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。
裁決
法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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