The voluntary dissolution of a Malta company is a significant legal process that should not be underestimated. It requires a thorough thought process, previous year compliance obligations to be met, and strict adherence to legal obligations. Failure to do so will result in serious consequences for the directors, shareholders and liquidator alike, especially if the liquidator is not vigilant in the manner in which the liquidator's role and responsibilities are carried out.
Dissolution and consequential winding up, is a critical process in the life cycle of a company, marking its transition from active business operations into a state of liquidation eventually sealed by complete closure. Under Maltese law, the dissolution of companies is primarily governed by the Companies Act (Chapter 386 of the Laws of Malta, the “Act”), which provides a structured framework to ensure that the process is conducted fairly and efficiently.
On 15 May 2024, the Bermuda Court granted an order striking out a winding-up petition (the “Petition”), setting aside an earlier order appointing joint provisional liquidators (“JPLs”), and discharging the JPLs appointed over New Sparkle Roll International Group Limited (the “Company”), a Bermuda company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The Company’s new board of directors (the “New Board”) was represented by Conyers.
Background
This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary winding up and striking off under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”).
Voluntary winding up
Welcome to our latest quarterly bulletin which contains updates on commercial litigation developments over the past three months, largely by reference to articles posted to our Litigation Notes blog in that period. Other posts are available on the blog, which you can visit any time. Or subscribe to be notified of the latest updates: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation.
Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.
The A&O Shearman team, together with counsel Michael Lok and Jasmine Cheung, acted for the opposing creditor in these Scheme proceedings.
Dispute Resolution analysis: In a judgment which brings to a conclusion the trial of the former BHS directors, the Court has held the directors joint and severally liable for the increase in net deficiency of the company arising out of breaches of duty which caused the company to continue trading.
Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Limited [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
Do you have any Cayman Islands entities that you are considering terminating prior to year-end?
In this briefing, Ogier Global's Corinne Cellier, associate director and head of our solvent liquidations team, reminds us of the options and timing for the termination of Cayman Islands entities. Our aim is to make the process as straightforward and clear as possible for our clients, navigating the applicable deadlines and regulatory considerations.
Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 178
In what could be seen as a wake-up call, the High Court of Singapore clarified the scope of director’s duties in Singapore, emphasizing the minimum standard of care required.
Background
In this article, James Hyne and Nicola Jackson, Partners in Charles Russell Speechlys’ Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team, based in the