Case Background
14th June, 2022 -The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) handed down a judgment inShandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11 (“CFA Decision”) yesterday, ruling on the nature of benefits conferred by a winding up order required to wind up a foreign incorporated company.
Can a winding-up petition be presented when a company is being wounded up voluntarily?
The impact upon the economy as a result of COVID-19 sees no signs of abatement in the near-term and not a single sector of industry has been spared. Economic data shows that GDP declines in real terms, along with private expenditure.
Perhaps some of the rounds of stimulus distributed by the HKSAR Government will help cushion the local economy, but in any event any recovery will be patchy at best with some sectors facing a much longer period of uncertainty than others.
Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.
Since the signing of a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong in May 2021, there have been a number applications for letters of request to be issued by the Hong Kong Court to the Bankruptcy Court of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court.
When a Cayman Islands company is in official liquidation, no proceedings or claims can be commenced against the company without the Cayman Court's permission. This requirement serves as a safeguard for the liquidation estate of the company in liquidation from being unnecessarily depleted at the expense of stakeholders of the liquidation.
“I highly recommend Tiffany’s work” “A fantastic practitioner”
Questions & Answers
Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 (date of decision: 6 May 2022)
Introduction
The 3 core requirements are factors considered by the Hong Kong Court when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to wind up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.
簡介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。
裁決
法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：
简介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黄共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代账目。被告人以有关诉讼没有在《时效条例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 条订明的六年诉讼时效内提出为由，申请剔除原告人的申索，但被原讼法庭（「法院」）驳回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一间正在清盘的公司，它控告其两名前董事（「被告人」）违反受信责任，向第三方作出合共139笔付款而没有妥当解释（「可疑交易」）。原告人请求法院颁令被告人交代账目，并在制备账目后交出结欠的资产或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法补偿。被告人认为可疑交易距离令状发出已超过六年，因此本案已丧失诉讼时效，应根据《时效条例》第4(2) 条予以驳回。
裁决
法院指出下列与剔除申请有关的重要问题：