Lee Siu Fung Siegfried[2021] 5 HKLRD 627
In January 2001, a bankruptcy petition was presented against Mr. Lee Siu Fung Siegfried in respect of a HK$322 million debt arising out of a guarantee given by him. In or around September 2016, the trustees in bankruptcy obtained an order for the private examination of Mr. Lee and the Applicants, who are the younger brother and son of Mr. Lee.
Re So Tsz Man[2021] HKCFI 3732
This case concerns the self-petitions presented by four debtors for their own bankruptcy (the “Four Petitions”). The Four Petitions (i.e. Re So Tsz Man(HCB 7033/2020), Re Lee Wing(HCB 7299/2020), Re Tam Wai Yiu(HCB 7569/2020) and Re Qiu Wenjun(HCB 3930/2021) shared a substantial similar fact pattern:
Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd (Provisional Liquidators: Application for Directions)
[2021] 5 HKLRD 212, [2021] HKCA 1581
Chan Seung Bun v Wong King Fai Joe and Another[2021] HKCFI 3572
The Company was co-founded by the petitioner Mr. Chan Seung Bun (the “Petitioner”) and the late 1st Respondent (“R1”), now represented by the joint executrices of the estate (the “Executrices”) in 2013. It was not in dispute that the Company was a quasi-partnership established based on mutual trust and confidence between the Petitioner and R1. The Company had been profitable since its establishment.
Re Chan John Loong Fai[2021] HKCA 1834
Re GTI Holdings Ltd[2021] HKCFI 3647
The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the Main Board of the HKEX. The Petitioner sought to wind up the Company on the ground that the Company failed to satisfy a statutory demand served upon it on 21 January 2020. On 26 May 2020, the Company presented a winding up petition (“Petition”) against itself and applied for the appointment of PLs for restructuring purpose with the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. Subsequently, on 28 May 2020, the Cayman Court appointed PLs over the Company.
有關森信洋紙有限公司 (2021) 粵 03 認港破 1 號
Introduction
In the case of Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535, which concerns a negligence claim for breach of Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance against the defendant bank, the English Court of Appeal (“CA”) unanimously found in favour of HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) and struck out both claims.
Background
簡介
在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英國匯豐銀行（「匯豐」）被指違反Quincecare責任及提供不誠實的協助，因而被控疏忽。英國上訴法院（「上訴庭」）一致裁定匯豐勝訴，兩項申索均被駁回。
背景
於2009年倒閉清盤的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期間在匯豐持有多個帳戶（「涉案帳戶」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一個最大的龐茲騙局而欠債超過50億美元。原告人的清盤人（「清盤人」）向匯豐提出以下兩項申索：
简介
在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英国汇丰银行（「汇丰」）被指违反Quincecare责任及提供不诚实的协助，因而被控疏忽。英国上诉法院（「上诉庭」）一致裁定汇丰胜诉，两项申索均被驳回。
背景
于2009年倒闭清盘的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期间在汇丰持有多个帐户（「涉案帐户」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一个最大的庞兹骗局而欠债超过50亿美元。原告人的清盘人（「清盘人」）向汇丰提出以下两项申索：