In brief

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 Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.

In its recent decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3 (Walton), the High Court of Australia held, in a split decision, that the mandatory public examination power contained in section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) could be used by eligible applicants to examine directors and other officers of a company in external administration, including senior management, external administrators and trustees, about the company’s affairs for the broad purposes of enforcing and promoting comp

The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld an order refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud.

In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.

Facts

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.

Background

Pars Ram Brother (Singapore Company) obtained trade financing facilities from various banks, and pledged the goods financed by each bank under a pledge arrangement as security.

The Singapore Company entered into voluntary liquidation. The liquidator discovered that the Singapore Company had mixed the goods making it impossible to identify which goods were financed by which bank.

Issue

Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon, owners of the New York Mets baseball team, invested in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Irving Picard, the trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act to liquidate the business of Madoff and Madoff Securities, sought to recover over $1 billion from Katz and Wilpon on the grounds that they had made money from Madoff through fraud, constructive fraud and preferential transfers in violation of federal bankruptcy law and New York debtor-creditor law.

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its judgment in theRe Indalex Limited case (Indalex).1 The decision addresses the interplay between the deemed trust provision in the Ontario Pension and Benefits Act (PBA)2 and the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA),3 as well as the fiduciary duties of pension plan administrators in CCAA proceedings. Indalex is important for pension plan sponsors and administrators for a number of reasons: