The Company operates predominantly in China. It is in the business of assisting with screening and diagnosis of cancers of various kinds and has developed products to provide early screening, particularly for bowel cancer. It appeared to have been successful for a number of years. However, in 2023, complaints were made by a third party that the Company’s sales figures did not appear to be justifiable.

This triggered an internal investigation which raised questions about the reliability of sales data within the Company and some suggestions that the Company's revenue had been overstated.

Due to the question marks over the accuracy of the figures, the Company’s accounts for 2023 were not completed. Moreover, the Company’s auditors, Deloitte, resigned and new auditors were appointed but were not (as at the date of the petition hearing) able to complete their audit of the 2023 accounts.

The investigations continued but the issues remain unresolved. As a result, HKEX suspended trading in the Company’s shares in March 2024. HKEX further warned that if the company failed to resolve matters to its satisfaction by 27 September 2025, the shares would be de-listed.

The board of the Company determined that it would be in the Company’s best interests to appoint PLs to continue to carry out the investigations and at the same time attempt to achieve a rescue, or perhaps a restructuring, to allow it to continue its operations.

On 6 August 2025, in an ex tempore  judgment, Justice Asif KC, sitting in the Cayman Court, ordered the appointment of the PLs.

The Court considered that it was clear from the material before it that the Company held valuable assets and appeared to have a viable business (provided that its internal difficulties can be resolved). Justice Asif KC observed that although no restructuring plan had yet been formulated, the board had demonstrated an intention to pursue a restructuring. In those circumstances, the case fell within the scope of appointing PLs to facilitate potential restructuring, if achievable.

The Court was taken to section 104(1) of the Cayman Companies Act which establishes the Court’s jurisdiction to appoint PLs. The Court then considered the difference between the appointment of PLs and the appointment of restructuring officers (ROs) and the two cases of Kingkey Financial International (Holdings) Limited  (unreported, 12/04/24) and Oakwise Value Fund SPC  (unreported, 16/12/24).

Justice Asif KC concluded that in this case, a restructuring officer’s powers “would not be sufficiently broad or are unlikely to be sufficiently broad to cover all the various steps that this company is likely to need to happen in order for a rescue to be successful. The additional powers that are likely to be available to a provisional liquidator makes the appointment of provisional liquidators a preferable one for this particular company.”  Accordingly, it was appropriate for PLs to be appointed within the meaning of Section 104(3) of the Act.

Following Kingkey, Oakwise and now most recently New Horizon Health, it is certainly not the case, as a matter of practice, that the RO regime has displaced the restructuring provisional liquidator regime. The jurisdiction of the Court to appoint PLs on the application of the company is now broader than it was prior to the coming into effect of the RO regime. Whereas formerly, restructuring PLs could be appointed on the application of the company where it was unable to pay its debts and intended to present a compromise to creditors, the position now is that upon an application by the company, the Court may appoint PLs “if it considers it appropriate to do so.” This is, on its terms, a broader and far less prescriptive jurisdiction.

For a more in-depth discussion of this important issue, see our article Restructuring the Cayman Islands segregated portfolio company: A closer look at in re Oakwise Value Fund SPC.