Re Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 10/2014 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 August 2018.
1. I have before me a summons dated 14 June 2017 seeking a permanent stay of the winding-up proceedings involving Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited and a simultaneous discharge of the liquidators. The background to the application is straightforward. The Company’s liabilities to unsecured creditors have been compromised pursuant to a scheme of arrangement.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCCW 10/2014 [2018] HKCFI 1986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING‑UP PROCEEDINGS NO 10 OF 2014 ________________
________________
___________________ D E C I S I O N ___________________ 1.I have before me a summons dated 14 June 2017 seeking a permanent stay of the winding-up proceedings involving Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited and a simultaneous discharge of the liquidators. The background to the application is straightforward. The Company’s liabilities to unsecured creditors have been compromised pursuant to a scheme of arrangement. 2.The circumstances in which the court will grant a stay of extant winding-up proceedings are summarised in para 2 of my judgment in Re The Grande Holdings Limited, unreported, HCCW 177/2011, 9 May 2016. They are—
3.It is normally the case where unsecured debts have been compromised pursuant to a scheme of arrangement that these conditions are readily satisfied. 4.An issue did arise in the present matter as a result of a delay in completion of the scheme but that issue has now been resolved and as a consequence, I am satisfied that the normal criteria have been met and it is an appropriate case to stay the winding-up proceedings and make the consequential order discharging the liquidators. 5.The costs of the application will be paid out of the assets of the Company.
Mr Michael Lok, instructed by Wilkinson & Grist, for the liquidators The attendance of the Official Receiver was excused |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case