Introduction

In the recent case of Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch), the English High Court (”Court”) ordered the winding up of a public company on a relatively uncommon ground - loss of substratum, i.e. – the abandonment of a company’s main object and purpose.

Background

简介

最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英国高等法院（「法院」）基于一个比较罕见的理由颁令将一家上市公司清盘——失去公司基础（loss of substratum），即公司放弃其主要宗旨和目的。

背景

Klimvest Plc（「该公司」）于2019年1月出售其业务及资产，其后其唯一重大资产为约800万英镑的现金储备。出售资产后，该公司的最大股东Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辩人」）要求该公司动用出售所得款项作出新投资，而非将在清盘中分派予股东。

Eric Duneau先生（「呈请人」）要求根据英国《1986年无力偿债法》第122(1)(g) 条颁令该公司清盘，认为由于该公司已失去其目的或基础，将该公司清盘属公正公平。第一答辩人反对呈请，辩称（其中包括）该公司并无失去其目的或基础，因为该公司在出售资产前实质上已成为一间控股投资公司，公司的目的仍可透过该投资实现。

失去公司基础的测试

In March 2019, Liquidators were appointed to The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) by way of a creditors’ voluntary winding up. TASCO owned a large lot of contaminated land – there were stockpiles of construction and demolition waste resulting from a former licensee conducting a materials recycling business.

Defendants to a proceeding related to a breach of an Asset Sale Agreement, successfully joined directors to the action by way of a third party notice, seeking damages for liability incurred where those directors had breached their directors obligations to discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).

In the matter of Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, the Court held that Griffin Coal Mining Company (Griffin) was insolvent, without having to prove so under the section 95A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). This was in accordance with a contractual provision where it provided specific circumstances where insolvency could be proven and as such a breach had occurred and the contract could be terminated.

简介

最近在关于申请罢免清盘人的Shearman & Sterling (a firm) and others v Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) and others [2022] HKCFI 218一案中，法院在详细考虑提出此项申请所需的资格后驳回申请，裁定申请人欠缺所需资格。

背景

第一被告人（「该公司」）是一间正在进行债权人自愿清盘的公司。第二及第三被告人（分别为「邓先生」及「侯女士」）是该公司的清盘人。该公司在高院民事诉讼2006年第806号（「高院讼案」）是原告人之一，而本案的原告人（「谢尔曼等人」）是高院讼案的被告人。

簡介

最近在關於申請罷免清盤人的Shearman & Sterling (a firm) and others v Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) and others [2022] HKCFI 218一案中，法院在詳細考慮提出此項申請所需的資格後駁回申請，裁定申請人欠缺所需資格。

背景

第一被告人（「該公司」）是一間正在進行債權人自願清盤的公司。第二及第三被告人（分別為「鄧先生」及「侯女士」）是該公司的清盤人。該公司在高院民事訴訟2006年第806號（「高院訟案」）是原告人之一，而本案的原告人（「謝爾曼等人」）是高院訟案的被告人。

Introduction

In the recent case of Shearman & Sterling (a firm) and others v Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) and others [2022] HKCFI 218, which concerns an application for removal of liquidators, the Court, after having considered the requisite locus standi for making such an application in detail, dismissed the application, finding that the applicants lacked the standing.

Background

Thorn (liquidator), in the matter of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (Company) involved an ex parte application by a liquidator seeking approval under section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) to enter into agreements to fund existing litigation and a request for the suppression and non-publication of certain details in those agreements.

Background

Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking UniversityFounder Group Co Ltd[2021] HKCFI 3817