In Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 2361, the Hong Kong Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an offshore holding company due to difficulties in the recognition of Hong Kong liquidators in the BVI.
Background
The recent decision in Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in liquidation in the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 reaffirms the willingness of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Companies Court”) to recognise the winding-up of a company in Mainland China and thereby grant recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed in the Mainland.
In a recent Court of First Instance case before Harris J, Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd (Company) sought to strike out a winding-up petition issued against it by Lasmos Ltd (Petitioner). The ground of insolvency relied on by the Petitioner was a statutory demand of US$259,700.48 (Debt), arising out of a management services agreement (MSA) between the Company and the Petitioner (Parties). The Company disputed the Debt.
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).
As discussed in our previous blog post, the decision for provisional liquidators to apply for directions on the distribution of funds can be a difficult one to make.
In The Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of China Oil Gangran Energy Group Holdings Limited [2020] HKCFI 825, the Hong Kong Court continued a trend of recognising foreign soft-touch provisional liquidators.
In the first instance decision of Fo Shan Shi Shun De Qu Consonancy Investment Co Ltd v Yat Kit Jong [2017] HKEC 557, the Court took a dim view of a party's conduct in respect of expert directions. It held that the party's failure to properly define the scope of the issues to be covered by the expert was a violation of procedural rules and prejudicial to the opposing party, and as such ordered that the party be penalised on costs.
Facts
The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.
The Hong Kong Court has broken yet more new ground by recognising Mainland reorganisation proceedings for the first time in Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897.
During the COVID-19 crisis, many companies are facing unexpected financial distress, and taking steps to stabilise their business and bolster their finances.
Many directors will not have experienced these issues before, and should be aware of how their duties are impacted when the company is in financial distress.
This guide has been prepared on the basis of Hong Kong law principles. Many of the principles will also be applicable to other common law jurisdictions.
How are companies responding to the current crisis?