Whether it’s the kids’ day-care, the family holiday, or that gym membership we eagerly signed up for on the first of January, paying for goods and services before receiving them is the normal practice in many business sectors. It’s also the usual way to buy things off the internet. It’s become so common that we rarely ask what would happen if the business fails to deliver. Fortunately, in Hong Kong this is a question that does not have to be asked often, but as the economic environment gets tougher it may be one that deserves greater attention.

A key factor contributing to the vitality and development of the common law is that judges can have the benefit of authorities from other jurisdictions with a comparable legal framework. This has proved and will be increasingly important in areas such as cross-border insolvency, where modified universalism has been thecatchword in recent years.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), gazetted on 3 June 2016, will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. It amends the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32. This article is the first in a series, highlighting the major changes to be introduced.

Aims of Amendment Ordinance

The Amendment Ordinance aims to:

Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor's winding up petition to include debts accrued only after its presentation.

The current litigation landscape for professionals in Hong Kong is relatively benign: but is this the lull before the storm? Accurate records are kept of all actions commenced in the Hong Kong High Court, which deals with claims of over HK$1 million. The graph above shows the number of claims begun by writ each year over the last 15 years. This data covers all claims, not just those against professionals, but gives an indication of the general litigation trends.

In the recent case Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors FACV 4/2015 (11 November 2015), the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) ordered the ultimate foreign holding company of a world famous roast goose restaurant in Hong Kong, Yung Kee Holdings Limited (“Yung Kee”) to be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable to do so pursuant to section 327(3)(c) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“Section 327(3)(c)”).

On Wednesday, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") reversed the lower courts' decision in the Yung Kee case¹ , holding that the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction to order the winding up of Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a holding company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and not registered in Hong Kong.

Dispute Resolution Beijing/Hong Kong/Shanghai Client Alert Court of Final Appeal Widens Shareholders’ Rights for the Winding-up of Foreign Companies in Hong Kong The Court of Final Appeal’s recent decision in the Yung Kee saga (Kam Leung Sui Kwan, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kam Kwan Sing, the deceased v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors (FACV 4/2015, 11 November 2015)) has widened the door to winding-up relief for shareholders of foreign companies.

Summary