简介
最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，终审法院推翻了原讼法庭及上诉法庭（「上诉庭」）的裁决。与上诉庭及原讼法庭的裁决相反，终审法院裁定，于新昌开始清盘后出售其在合营协议项下剩余权利及权益的交易是无效的。
背景
新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）于2013年11月订立一份合营协议（「合营协议」），以成立及经营一间合营公司（「合营公司」）。合营公司于2016年6月获得一项大型政府项目合约，其中该公司占65% 权益，Build King占余下35% 权益。
该公司于2017/2018年度开始面临财政困难。2018年8月27日，该公司被入禀清盘，导致该公司的银行帐户被冻结。
Introduction
In the recent case of Chau Cheok Wa v CT Environmental Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2602, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) reiterated that for appointment of provisional liquidators pending determination of a winding-up petition, an applicant must establish that there is a good prima facie case for winding-up order at the hearing of the petition and it is right that a provisional liquidator should be appointed in light of the circumstances of the case.
Background
The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).
In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.
Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. This article is Part 2 of a two-part series. In this article, we highlight the impact of voluntary administration on various stakeholders and the potential outcomes for a company in voluntary administration. It is not intended to be used as an exhaustive guide to Australia’s voluntary administration regime and its many nuances.
Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. This article is Part 1 of a two-part series. This article provides an introductory overview of voluntary administration in Australia, explaining what it is, why entities might enter it and its processes. It is not intended to be used as an exhaustive guide to Australia’s voluntary administration regime and its many nuances.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2361, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign incorporated listed company, the Court of First Instance revisited the 2nd core requirement and considered whether the possibility of the court making an order to compel the directors of the company to execute the documents necessary for the liquidators to take control of the company’s BVI subsidiaries would be sufficient to be considered as a real possibility of benefit to the petitioner.
In Australia, public companies are required to have at least three directors (s 201A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act)). However, in exceptional circumstances, a public company might find itself with fewer than three directors – for example, where the other board directors resign because of some disagreement.
簡介
我們於7月的清盤及重組文章中，介紹了中國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港律政司司長於2021年5月14日簽署《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》（「合作機制」），當中訂明了香港法院與深圳、上海及廈門三個試點地區的中級人民法院相互認可破產的程序和人員安排的具體程序。