The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

In a first in Hong Kong, the Companies Court has recently sanctioned a creditors' scheme of arrangement proposed by a Bermuda-incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company by approving an alternative process pursued by the company and its provisional liquidators so as to overcome the constraints in Re Legend International Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192; that in Hong Kong, provisional liquidators cannot be appointed for the sole purpose of restructuring a company.

The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury recently announced that the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance (the “Amendment Ordinance”) will come into operation on 13 February 2017. The Amendment Ordinance introduces a more efficient administration of the winding-up process and streamlines the procedures in line with international developments. The new legislation also aims to further protect creditors against asset depletion of insolvent companies.

Our alert discusses these developments.

The latest piece in the jigsaw of Hong Kong's corporate winding-up regime is the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 ("Amendment Ordinance"), which enters into legal effect as of today, 13 February 2017.

What’s on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster What's on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster 1 What to expect in the Year of the Rooster In this bulletin we examine some of the key dispute resolution and regulatory challenges facing business managers, financial controllers, and in-house counsel in the Year of the Rooster. 1.

New legislation came into force in Hong Kong in eary February which gives the court power to set aside transactions performed at an undervalue. This briefing explains the scope of this new law and the key considerations for directors when approving corporate transactions in order to avoid the risk of incurring personal liability. It is available in English and Chinese.

Experienced insolvency practitioners in Hong Kong are all familiar with Hong Kong Court of Appeal's decision of 1 March 2006 in the liquidation of Legend International Resorts Limited1.

In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).