In the recent case Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors FACV 4/2015 (11 November 2015), the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) ordered the ultimate foreign holding company of a world famous roast goose restaurant in Hong Kong, Yung Kee Holdings Limited (“Yung Kee”) to be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable to do so pursuant to section 327(3)(c) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“Section 327(3)(c)”).

Official Receiver v Zhi Charles, formerly known as Chang Hyun Chi, and Joint and Several Trustees of the Estate of Chan Hyun Chi, the Bankrupt (FACV 8/2015)

Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance and its predecessor sections have been with us for a very long time – its origins can be traced back to the Companies Ordinance 1865. It has been described as a vital part of the statutory insolvency regime, and there are corresponding provisions in the UK, Australia, Singapore, Canada and New Zealand. Because section 221 and its overseas equivalents have been around for so long, there is a wealth of authority on its scope and purpose.

But first, a reminder of the Court’s powers under section 221. These are:

New disclosure requirements imposed on listed companies under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”) have been effective since on 1 January 2013.

Under these requirements, a listed company is obliged to disclose inside information as soon as reasonably practicable when the information has or ought reasonably have come to the knowledge of an officer of the listed company.

Law Society of Ireland v Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland [04.09.15]

Bilta (UK) Ltd in liquidation) & others v Muhammad Nazir & others [30.07.12]

High Court refuses to accept that a claim by an insolvent one-man company against its director for breach of his duties would be barred by ex turpi causa.

Bilta had two directors, one of whom owned all the company’s issued shares, effectively making it a "one-man company". The directors used Bilta to perpetrate a huge VAT fraud which left the company owing £38 million to HMRC. As a result, it was placed into insolvent liquidation.

Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) and Blight and others v Brewster (9 February 2012)

Most pension schemes give the beneficiary an option as to when to start to draw the pension, and whether or not to draw a tax free lump sum. These two cases confirm that a trustee in bankruptcy and a judgment creditor are each entitled to compel a debtor to draw the maximum permitted by the scheme rules, so that the monies realised as a result are available to pay the debt.  

Pension schemes and bankruptcy

Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and another [2011] UKSC 38.

The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which it is possible for a contract to provide for a company or individual to lose assets on insolvency.  

Summary

Well-established rules are unchanged, so landlords can still forfeit leases on insolvency. In other cases, if a transaction is entered into in good faith and for valid commercial reasons, it is likely to be upheld.

Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011]

The decision of Mr Justice Mann in the High Court in Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011] exemplifies the detailed investigation which can be carried out by the appointment of a provisional liquidator or a liquidator in cases of suspected fraud. It also contains some useful comments on the extent of the liquidator’s evidential burden in such cases.

In the recent case of Pressure Coolers Ltd v (1) Mr J Molloy; (2) Maestro International Limited; and (3) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to decide who should pay an employee’s basic award and notice pay following his unfair and wrongful dismissal after a “pre pack” TUPE transfer from his insolvent employer.