簡介

最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈請人成功申請將嘉年華國際控股有限公司（「該公司」）清盤。該公司是一家在香港聯合交易所（「聯交所」）上市的百慕達公司。在本案中，法院澄清及確認其將外國公司清盤的司法管轄權。此外，法院命令就訟費問題將該公司董事（「董事」）加入為被告人，因此日後假如公司在欠缺理據的情況下反對清盤呈請，董事或須就呈請人及支持清盤的債權人的訟費承擔個人責任。

背景

該公司在百慕達註冊成立，並根據香港前《公司條例》第XI部註冊為海外公司，其股份在聯交所上市，股份代號 996。該公司是一家投資控股公司，持有在香港、中國內地及英屬維爾京群島註冊成立的附屬公司（統稱「該集團」）。該集團主要在中國內地經營主題式休閒及消費業務。

Introduction

简介

最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈请人成功申请将嘉年华国际控股有限公司（「该公司」）清盘。该公司是一家在香港联合交易所（「联交所」）上市的百慕达公司。在本案中，法院澄清及确认其将外国公司清盘的司法管辖权。此外，法院命令就讼费问题将该公司董事（「董事」）加入为被告人，因此日后假如公司在欠缺理据的情况下反对清盘呈请，董事或须就呈请人及支持清盘的债权人的讼费承担个人责任。

背景

该公司在百慕达注册成立，并根据香港前《公司条例》第XI部注册为海外公司，其股份在联交所上市，股份代号 996。该公司是一家投资控股公司，持有在香港、中国内地及英属维尔京群岛注册成立的附属公司（统称「该集团」）。该集团主要在中国内地经营主题式休闲及消费业务。

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?