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

Re China Resources – PL fails for lack of Hong Kong creditor support

In the recent decision of Re China Resources and Transportation Group Ltd in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Justice Doyle dismissed an application for the appointment of provisional liquidators under s104 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision), on the ground that the petitioner had not established the appointment was necessary to prevent the dissipation or misuse of company assets or to prevent mismanagement or misconduct on the part of the directors, describing the evidence as “flimsy” and little more than assertion. The Court was also concerned that the application did not appear to have the support of any other creditors.

In its statutory demand to the Company, it was noted by the petitioning creditor that it: “shall be the prospective creditor of your company” and referred to the maturity date on promissory notes issued by the Company to the petitioner of 15 April 2024 and expressly accepted that the “debts are not yet due”. The letter gave the Company 14 days to “redeem the above promissory notes and pay relevant interests” and if that was not done it is stated that “our client shall have no choice but to take relevant actions without further notice”. The petition stated that “the Petitioner seeks a winding up order on the grounds of insolvency and that it is just and equitable in the circumstances”, and cited a generalised complaint in respect of “mismanagement”. The Court was not required to decide the point that “creditor” in s104 is likely to include prospective creditors, although it does not, unlike s94(1)(b), expressly say so. 

A PL was sought on the basis of jeopardy to assets pending the determination of the winding up of the Company. The Learned Judge cited earlier Cayman Islands authority of Justice Jones in Orchid Developments Group Limited (21 December 2012), of Justice Segal in Asia Strategic Capital Fund LP (17 March 2015) and the judgment of Justice Parker in CW Group Holdings Limited (3 August 2018).

It was held that: “There is insufficient evidence before the court to take the serious step of appointing provisional liquidators. I do not accept [counsel’s] submission that the Court has been provided with “cogent evidence of mismanagement by the directors of the Company”. I would describe the evidence on the mismanagement point as flimsy. It is little more than mere assertion”. There was therefore no urgent need for an investigation into the affairs of the Company.

The Court appears to have been additionally troubled by the lack of broader creditor support – an issue recently re-iterated as of fundamental importance by the Hong Kong Courts in the light touch restructuring PL cases of Lamtex and China Bozza. The Grand Court judge in refusing the appointment of the jeopardy to assets PL held that: “I note also that the application does not appear to have the support of any other creditors despite the public announcement on the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange of this hearing today” and “It would appear that the Petitioner does not have the support of the Company’s other creditors in seeking the appointment of provisional liquidators and a winding up order”.

 

Re China Resources – PL fails for lack of Hong Kong creditor support

Leave A Comment