Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Hong Kong Court clarifies the decision in Re Legend International Resorts Ltd

In the recent decision of China Solar Energy Holdings Limited [2018] HKCFI 555, Mr. Justice Harris dismissed a winding-up application and attempts to discharge the Company’s provisional liquidators, holding that provisional liquidations appointed in Hong Kong for the purposes of preserving the Company’s assets, may also be granted powers to explore and facilitate the restructuring of the Company’s debts and liabilities. 

The decision concerned China Solar Energy Holdings Limited (the Company), a company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE), with the trading of its shares suspended since 13 August 2013.  On 21 August 2015, joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) were appointed to the Company with asset preservation and restructuring powers.  The JPLs subsequently procured an investor to inject a profit-making business into the Company and submitted various resumption proposals to the HKSE.

Ankang Ltd, a creditor and shareholder of the Company, subsequently commenced proceedings to wind-up the Company and sought to discharge the JPLs on the basis that it does not support the current restructuring proposal on the table.  

Ankang argued that (i) Re Legend International Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192 is authority that the appointment of provisional liquidators cannot be permitted if their sole function is to carry out a business or debt restructuring; given the JPLs sole or primary concern is the restructuring of the Company, their appointment is a misuse of the provisional liquidation regime, (ii) the JPLs cannot say that they are needed to protect the Company’s asset in the form of its listing status because a company’s listing status is not an asset.  

In Re Legend, the Court of Appeal held that the appointment of provisional liquidators must be “for the purposes of winding up”, not avoiding winding up; and that restructuring a company “is an alternative to a winding-up”.  

Mr. Justice Harris held that Ankang’s arguments amounted to a misreading of Re Legend, does not comport with the Hong Kong statutory regime and appears to be inconsistent with post-Legend case law.

  1. In stating “for the purposes of winding up” [argued by Ankang], the Court of Appeal in Re Legend must not have meant that the intended result of any provisional liquidation must be winding up.  This would contradict the Court of Appeal’s own endorsement of the practice to appoint provisional liquidators to preserve assets with restructuring powers.
  2. The law has never been that provisional liquidation is meant to lead to a winding-up, but rather that it ensures that a winding-up will not be frustrated.
  3. When the Court of Appeal said provisional liquidation cannot be “solely for the purpose of enabling a corporate rescue to take place” and“[r]estructuring a company is an alternative to winding-up”, the Court of Appeal was merely emphasizing that, where the matters associated with a winding-up are absent, in particular where the company’s assets are not in jeopardy, it would not be appropriate to order a provisional liquidation, despite the company’s general need for a restructuring.
  4. The result of Ankang’s interpretation leads to a counter-intuitive scenario where provisional liquidators must abandon their restructuring efforts once they have completed their preservation efforts.  This approach is not in the best interest of creditors.
  5. There is no hint in the statutory regime that appointment of the JPLs must be restricted in the manner suggested by the petitioner in order to increase the likelihood of a winding-up.
  6. Post – Re Legend case law demonstrates that even after the provisional liquidators have secured the company’s assets, they may continue to exercise their restructuring powers pending the resolution of the winding-up petition.
  7. A company’s listing status is akin to a non-transferable stock exchange membership which is nonetheless an asset of the member.

For further information in relation to Bermuda, BVI and Cayman Islands law, please contact CHAI RIDGERSNICK HOFFMANJAYSON WOOD, or PHIL KITE.

Hong Kong Court clarifies the decision in Re Legend International Resorts Ltd

Leave A Comment