Introduction
Section 209(1) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) empowers the Hong Kong court to make an order staying the winding-up proceedings after the winding-up order is made upon the application of, among others, a contributory. However, in the case of Safe Castle Limited v China Silver Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited [2020] HKCFI 1028, Harris J made it clear that the court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion to stay a winding-up order pending appeal.
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.
Practical implications
Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.
Court confirms dividends can be transactions at an undervalue
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a dividend paid by a company to its shareholders can constitute a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency law.
What happened?
At the initial hearing, the High Court found the dividend was caught by section 423 and was therefore invalid. Importantly, it said that a dividend could constitute a transaction at an undervalue. This was an important confirmation, and the High Court has since followed this approach (for example, in Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd).
The court has decided to allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a company that was placed into a pre-pack administration.
What happened?
Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska and others involved a restaurant company which was placed into a “pre-pack” administration, under which its entire business was sold, in late 2016.
In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.
The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.
In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.
What happened?