Summary

Did you know that a liquidator of a foreign company may seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Court to obtain orders for the production of information which orders are, in substance, of the type made in Hong Kong windings-up under section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance?

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

Introduction

While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators' task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.

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).

In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.

Did you know... that the court may, in special circumstances, exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers as a company’s provisional liquidators.

In the recent decision ofRe K Vision International Investment (Hong Kong) Limited, the Honourable Mr. Justice Barma confirmed that, where the circumstances require it, the court will exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers of a company’s assets as that company’s provisional liquidators provided that potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately addressed.

Ernst & Young ("E&Y") has settled the Akai Holdings ("Akai") case with Akai’s liquidator, Borrelli Walsh. In this case, E&Y was accused of negligence for failing to avert Akai’s collapse in 2004.

E&Y had been Akai’s auditor prior to the collapse, which remains Hong Kong’s biggest ever insolvency. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On 24 September 2009, the South China Morning Post reported that new evidence had come to light which suggested that E&Y’s staff had tampered with or faked hundreds of documents relating to its audit of Akai.

In Regent National Enterprises Limited v Goldlion Holdings Limited [2009] HKCFA 58, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal found that a liquidator had acted reasonably in relying on his solicitor's advice and invoking a force majeure clause, even though the advice later turned out to be erroneous.

The number of international arbitrations involving the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre doubled between 2004 and 2008. The number of winding up petitions is also currently on the rise because of the poor global economic environment. This article discusses conflicts that may arise between the statutory insolvency regime and the contractual rights of parties to arbitrate their disputes in Hong Kong.

Can Arbitration Be Used To Circumvent Statutory Insolvency Regimes?