Introduction

Introduction

In R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2¹ the Supreme Court held that the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") may not compel a foreign company to produce documents held overseas under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA 1987").

 Corporate Insolvency Cases 1. Winding up Listcos in Hong Kong - recent decision illustrates the difficulties creditors may face Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940 2. Hong Kong Court’s approach to validation application for MPF contributions made after the commencement of winding up Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 3. One petition against one debtor at one time Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36 4. Failure to plead the basis of a petition clearly may render the petition defective Pointer & Dent Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2823 5.

In this issue:

Introduction

Towards the end of 2020, while businesses were reeling from the challenges of grappling with a global pandemic, the end of the Brexit transition period and LIBOR transition, the Law Commission published a paper analysing the current law underlying intermediated securities - Intermediated securities: who owns your shares? A Scoping Paper.

China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940 (date of decision: 19 November 2020)

The Hong Kong courts have developed over time three core requirements by reference to which the court assesses whether or not a good reason for making a winding-up-order against a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong has been demonstrated.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

引言\

香港法例第 485 章《強制性公積金計劃條例》規定，僱員及僱主均須在強制性公積金計劃 （「強積金」）作出強制性供款，違例的僱主即屬犯罪，而強制性公積金計劃管理局（「積金 局」）可提出法律程序追討強制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中，法院探討了公司在清盤開始後支付的尚欠強制性強積金供款，是否可獲 法院認可。 

背景

經營建築服務的新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）正在進行清盤。2018 年 2 月起，該公司 偶然未能為其僱員作出強制性強積金供款。積金局對該公司提出民事訴訟，並在該公司沒有抗 辯下就四項申索取得勝訴，可討回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付強積金供款合共港幣 958 萬元。

引言

香港法例第 485 章《强制性公积金计划条例》规定，雇员及雇主均须在强制性公积金计划 （「强积金」）作出强制性供款，违例的雇主即属犯罪，而强制性公积金计划管理局（「积金 局」）可提出法律程序追讨强制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中，法院探讨了公司在清盘开始后支付的尚欠强制性强积金供款，是否可获 法院认可。 

背景

经营建筑服务的新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）正在进行清盘。2018 年 2 月起，该公司 偶然未能为其雇员作出强制性强积金供款。积金局对该公司提出民事诉讼，并在该公司没有抗 辩下就四项申索取得胜诉，可讨回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付强积金供款合共港币 958 万元。

Introduction