Introduction
If a company is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities. An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the company into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the company’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries. Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.
(judgment 22/2009)
This case concerned whether the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Bayoil S.A. (the “Bayoil Case”) would be persuasive in Guernsey and how the Royal Court of Guernsey should exercise its discretion under section 406 of the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the “Law”).
Introduction
If a fund is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities. An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the fund into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the fund’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries. Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.
Litigation is not always about money. Sometimes, it really is about the principle of the thing. Sometimes there are rights at stake which cannot be measured in financial terms. Usually, though, litigation is born of a financial loss and ultimately what matters is that the victor receives his spoils.
KWL Advertising Limited (in liquidation) ("KWL") -v- Kountouris & Kountouris, Guernsey UnreportedJudgment, 18 October 2006
Everyone is familiar with the story of the dashing Musketeers – Porthos, Athos, Aramis and d’Artagnan- and their inspirational motto. At the end of his adventures, one member of this famous band retired in order to marry the widow of a wealthy French lawyer, for whom the rallying cry might well have had a different significance.
The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (the "Amendment Ordinance") came into effect on 13 February 2017 seeking to revamp and modernize the winding-up regime in Hong Kong, but does it go far enough?
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.
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:
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.