In Wong Tak Man, Stephen & Another v Cheung Siu Fai & Ors [2015] HMP 1431/2012, the Court held that transfers of funds made by a bankrupt were not transactions at undervalue or unfair preferences pursuant to s49 and s50 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (the "BO"). This case serves as a useful reminder on how the Court will interpret s49 and s50 BO, as deemed to be applied in a corporate context by s.266B(1)(a) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32).

Facts 

In the recent case of Official Receiver v Zhi Charles (FACV 8/2015) (5 November 2015), the Court of Final Appeal (the "CFA") found s 30A(10)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) (the "BO") unconstitutional.

The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.

The recent case of The Joint Official Liquidators of A Company v B and Another has confirmed that a liquidator of a foreign company can seek the Hong Kong Companies Court’s assistance by applying for orders for the production of information and documents without the need to also apply to wind up that company in Hong Kong.

Background

In the recent case of In re Shiamas International Limited (HCCW 80/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused to stay a winding-up petition on the ground of a pending appeal from a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal to the French Court of Cassation.  This case is a timely reminder of the difficulties in obtaining a stay of a winding-up petition, the applicable principles and shows that the Court is willing to allow some flexibility.

Background

In the unusual case of Albert Edward Rodrigues v Associacao Portuguesa de Socorrous Mutuos (in liquidation) (HCMP 1391/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ordered a permanent stay of a company’s creditors’ voluntary winding up which has technically been going for 25 years, and in so doing reminded us of the applicable principles and the fact sensitive nature of such applications.

Background

Alstom v Insigma, the (in)famous SIAC arbitration administered under ICC rules, was recently up for yet another round of judicial sparring following years of proceedings in several fora, which left Alstom Technology Limited (“Alstom”) with a HK$261 million award but limited assets against which to execute.

On 17 July 2014, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal gave judgment in the case of Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (formerly known as Moulin International Holdings Limited) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei FACV No. 23 of 2013,providing helpful guidance on the expiry of applicable limitation periods.

Background

The exercise of the court’s discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company has again come under judicial spotlight in the recent case of Re China Medical Technologies Inc. (HCCW 435/2012).

The case of Highmax Overseas Ltd v Chau Kar Hon Quinton considers the interaction of two issues very relevant to trustees (particularly trustees of trust funds including company shares):Beddoe applications and Bartlett clauses. Reported Court decisions on both issues are thin on the ground, so this case provides helpful insight.