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。

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:

The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.

The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.