“…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

引言

在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中，原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤，因為原訟法庭認為，呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後，債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。

案情

SDFIII Holdings Limited（以下簡稱「呈請人」）以資不抵債為由，發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited（以下簡稱「該公司」）進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。

該公司在開曼群島註冊成立，並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權，該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司，而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產，並開展生產及其他業務。

對該公司無爭議的是，該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請，以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣，而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題，該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法，長遠而言，對該公司的債權人是有利的。

因此，法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。

爭議點

爭議點如下：-

Introduction

In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.

Facts

SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?