Re Husk's Green Technology Holding Co Ltd (in Liquidation)

HCCW 43/2021

[2023] HKCFI 3054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO 43 OF 2021

__________________

__________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.There is before the court a summons filed on 18 July 2023 by the petitioner, Mr Lee Chan Kok (“Petitioner”), seeking an order for the issuance of a letter of request to the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court (廈門市中級人民法院) (“Xiamen Court”) pursuant to the Cooperation Mechanism[1]. The stated purpose of the application is to assist the Petitioner to deal with the ongoing legal proceedings commenced by various third parties against the wholly owned subsidiaries of Husk’s Green Technology Holding Co., Limited (殼氏環保科技集團有限公司) (“Company”).

2.The Petitioner acts in person.  He was admitted as a barrister-in-law in England & Wales in 1990.   

3.The summons as issued was problematic.  At the hearing on 4 September 2023:

(1)  The Petitioner described himself as the largest creditor of the Company.  However, he was not the liquidator of the Company and had no locus to make the application.  Moreover, the evidence filed in support of the summons was not sufficient to meet the requirements as discussed in Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581, §§12-15, 18-20[2]. 

(2)  Mr Tsui Chun Ning of Huen & Patners informed the court that the liquidators of the Company were Huen Ho Yin and Huen Yuen Fun (together “Huens”), and they were “neutral” to the application. 

(3)  The Petitioner asserted that the Company had already been converted into voluntary liquidation and he had been acting as liquidator of the Company, but there was no evidence in support of the assertion. 

(4)  The application was adjourned sine die to allow the Petitioner to rectify the position and submit proper evidence in support of the application.    

4.At the hearing on 17 November 2023, the Petitioner relies on his 5^th, 6^th and 7^th affirmations filed on 14 April 2023, 18 July 2023 and 4 September 2023 respectively, his skeleton argument and chronology of event.  No draft order or draft letter of request has been submitted.  This is unacceptable.  Although the Petitioner acted in person, it was incumbent upon him to satisfy the requirements discussed in the authorities and place the requisite documents before the court.  The Petitioner could not expect the court to prepare a letter of request for him as the liquidator has to decide the terms of powers or assistance he requires from the Xiamen Court based on the factual situation faced by him.     

Background

5.The Company was incorporated on 7 January 2013 under the former Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32). It holds all the equity in 5 subsidiaries established in the Mainland, namely (collectively “Subsidiaries”):

(1)  殼氏(中國)商業有限公司;

(2)  殼氏(福建)環保科技有限公司;

(3)  殼氏唯(廈門)環保科技有限公司;

(4)  廈門殼氏新材料科技有限公司; and

(5)  殼氏(黑龍江)新材料科技有限公司.

6.On 22 January 2021, the Petitioner presented a winding-up petition against the Company in these proceedings.  On 26 October 2022, the Company was ordered to be wound up whereupon the Official Receiver became provisional liquidator of the Company.  The Official Receiver later appointed Huens as provisional liquidators pursuant to s.194(1A) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”). 

7.At the first meeting of creditors held on 17 January 2013, it was resolved that an application be made to convert the winding up into creditors’ voluntary winding up.

8.On 13 March 2023, the creditors including the Petitioner passed resolutions to nominate the Petitioner as new liquidator of the Company and to apply for relief under ss.209A and 252(2) of the CWUMPO. 

9.By summons issued on 14 April 2023, the Petitioner applied under s.209A of the CWUMPO for an order that the winding up of the Company be conducted as if the winding up were a creditors’ voluntary winding up and that the Petitioner be appointed as liquidator.  The bases of the application were that the Subsidiaries were the only realisable assets of the Company known to the Petitioner and there were legal and execution proceedings against 4 of the Subsidiaries which, if successful, would reduce the value of the Subsidiaries.  There was an urgent need for the creditors to take steps to safeguard the Subsidiaries and investigate their affairs.   

10.On 15 June 2023, this Court ordered that the compulsory winding up of the Company shall from the date of the order be conducted as if the winding up were a creditors’ voluntary winding up.  No order was made in respect of the application for appointment of the Petitioner as liquidator given that no cause had been shown as to why the Petitioner should be appointed in place of Huens and, in any event, it was a matter which should be decided by the creditors. 

11.No further step has been taken by the Petitioner to discuss with Huens as to whether they want to continue to act as liquidators or to replace them as liquidators. 

12.On 18 July 2023, the Petitioner issued the summons to seek recognition and assistance on the erroneous assumption that he had locus to make the application.  As stated in §3(4) above, the summons was adjourned sine die. 

13.On 4 September 2023, the Petitioner filed his 7^th affirmation to which he exhibited, for the first time, resolutions said to have been passed by the creditors on 2 September 2023 which (1) confirmed his appointment as liquidator of the Company and (2) appointed 羅渭平律師of 福建鷺一律師事務所 as “Mainland Administrator” under the Cooperation Mechanism (“2 September Resolutions”). 

14.On 3 October 2023, the Petitioner restored the summons which was scheduled to be heard on 16 November 2023 and subsequently changed to 17 November 2023. 

15.By letter dated 2 November 2023 to the court, Huens referred to the 2 September Resolutions and accepted that the Petitioner is the liquidator of the Company and has conduct of the summons, and asked to be excused at the adjourned hearing.   

16.As a result of the confirmation of Huens, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has since at least 2 September 2023 been appointed as liquidator of the Company. 

17.Against the above background, the Petitioner says that he requires recognition and assistance from the Xiamen Court so as to take steps to deal with the ongoing legal proceedings in the Mainland which have been or will be commenced against the Subsidiaries.   

Discussion

18.The principles governing an application for recognition and assistance under the Cooperation Mechanism and the approach of the court in dealing with the application have been stated in Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] 3 HKLRD 262 §§14-22[3]  and Re Trinity §§12-15, 18-20 and will not be repeated here. 

19.I turn to consider whether the requirements discussed in Re Trinity have been satisfied. 

20.First, the Company is and has since 15 June 2023 been in creditors’ voluntary liquidation, which falls within the meaning of “insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong”[4]. 

21.Second, the Petitioner is the liquidator of the Company. 

22.Third, the recognition and assistance are sought from the Xiamen Court, which is a court at a pilot area in the Mainland[5].

23.Fourth, the order sought is for recognition of the liquidator’s office, and grant of assistance for the discharge of his duties as liquidator of the Company[6].   

24.Fifth, the Company is a Hong Kong company.  Its centre of main interests has always been in Hong Kong, more than the 6 months’ period as prescribed in the Cooperation Mechanism[7].

25.Sixth, the Company’s principal, if not the only valuable assets, are the Subsidiaries all of which are established in the Mainland.  Amongst the Subsidiaries, the first 4 described in §5(1)-(4) above (collectively “4 Subsidiaries”) have been registered in Xiamen Municipality and their office are located in Xiamen.    

26.Seventh, the terms of the letter of request as revised and approved by this Court (see Appendix A) contains (1) a description of the duties of the liquidator under CWUMPO; (2) the recognition and assistance sought from the Xiamen Court to facilitate the discharge of the duties as liquidator of the Company in the Mainland; and (3) the specific reference to the liquidator’s need to take control of the 4 Subsidiaries. A table summarising the powers stated in §7 of the letter of request and the relevant provisions under the CWUMPO is in Appendix B.

27.Lastly, it is necessary for the liquidator to seek recognition and assistance from the Xiamen Court so that he can take control over the 4 Subsidiaries, having regard to the following facts and matters:

(1)  The principal, if not the only valuable, assets of the Company are the 100% equity in the Subsidiaries registered in the name of the Company;

(2)  There are ongoing legal and execution proceedings against the 4 Subsidiaries but none of their officers have taken any step to deal with or defend the proceedings on their behalf.  If this were allowed to continue, judgments would be entered against the 4 Subsidiaries in default, and their assets would be taken by the plaintiffs in those proceedings even if there were proper grounds for these Subsidiaries to oppose the proceedings.  It would not be in the interests of the 4 Subsidiaries and their equity holder (i.e. the Company) to leave the legal proceedings unattended.

28.For the above reasons, it is an appropriate case for the court to exercise its discretion to request the Xiamen Court to recognise the creditors’ voluntary winding up of the Company and assist the liquidator in the terms set out in the letter of request at Appendix A.

29.The Petitioner is directed to lodge the letter of request with the Registrar of the High Court within 7 days of this Judgment for the Registrar to sign the same.     

30.The letter of request, once signed, will be returned to the liquidator so that he can include it in the materials required to be submitted to the Xiamen Court.   

31.The costs of the application be taxed if not agreed by the creditors, and be paid out of the assets of the Company.

The Liquidator appears in person

Appendix A

________________________________________________________________________

根据认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点方案发出的司法协助

请求函

________________________________________________________________________

致：厦门市中级人民法院清算与破产审判庭（“厦门市破产法庭”）

鉴于：

1.  本法庭是对香港特别行政区（“香港”）的公司法和破产法行使管辖权的法庭。

2.  壳氏环保科技集团有限公司（“该公司”）是一家于2013年7月1日根据香港法律注册成立的公司。該公司的經營所在地一直都在香港。

3.  本法庭于2022年10月26日頒布命令将该公司强制清盘。

4.  于2023年1月17日，该公司债权人通过决议，依据香港法律《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（香港法例第32章）(“清盘及杂项条文”) 第209A条申请将该公司的强制清盘程序改成以债权人自愿清盘程序（“自愿清盘程序”)继续进行，并于2023年4月14日向本法庭提出相关申请。

5.  本法庭于2023年6月15日頒布命令从当日起将该公司的强制清盘按照清盤及雜項条文第209A条以债权人自愿清盘程序继续进行。因此，公司自2023年6月15日起开始在香港进行债权人自愿清盘程序。

6.  于2023年9月2日，该公司债权人通过决议，委任位于红磡鹤翔街8号维港中心2座1203室的Lee Chan Kok先生担任公司自愿清盘程序的清盘人（“清盘人”）。

7.  根据清盘及杂项条文第199(2)-(4) 条, 243A(2) 条, 250-257 条，清盘人有权作出（除其他外的）以下行为：

7.1  将该公司享有或看似有权享有的所有财产及据法权产，收归该清盘人保管或控制（第243A(2)条 ）；

7.2  藉公开拍卖或私人合约，出售该公司的土地财产、非土地财产及据法权产，并有权将该等财产及权产全盘转让予任何人或任何公司，或将它们分拆出售（附表25第3部第1项）；

7.3  以该公司名义和代表该公司作出所有作为及签立所有契据、收据及其他文件，并可为该目的而在有需要时，使用该公司印章（附表25第3部第2项）；

7.4  以该公司名义和代表该公司提起任何诉讼或其他法律程序，或以该公司名义和代表该公司在任何诉讼或其他法律程序中答辩（附表25第2部第1项）；

7.5  调查该公司失败的因由及在其交易及事务中就此作出的处理；及

7.6  作出为结束该公司事务及派发该公司资产而需要作出的所有其他事情（附表25第3部第9项）。

8.  由于该公司在内地的主要资产是其全资子公司, 即下列五間公司的註冊資本及其淨資產(即資產價值扣除債項):

8.1  壳氏（中国）商业有限公司, 一家位于厦门的全资子公司, 其統一社會信用代碼為913502135878646081, 登記經營場所地址為厦门市思明区莲岳路221-2号704单元之一；

8.2  壳氏（福建）环保科技有限公司, 一家位于厦门的全资子公司，其統一社會信用代碼為913505000523037400, 登記經營場所地址為厦门市翔安区垵边路386、388号2楼C区；

8.3  壳氏唯(厦门)环保科技有限公司,一家位于厦门的全资子公司，其統一社會信用代碼為91350200MA2XNF7440, 登記經營場所地址為中国（福建）自由贸易试验区厦门片区翔云一路40号盛通中心之二A区251单元；

8.4  厦门壳氏新材料科技有限公司, 一家位于厦门的全资子公司，其統一社會信用代碼為91350200MA34576Q34, 登記經營場所地址為厦门市翔安区垵边路386、388号2楼B区；

8.5  壳氏（黑龙江）新材料科技有限公司, 一家位于黑龙江的全资子公司，其統一社會信用代碼為91230100MA19CHLC0Q, 登記經營場所地址為黑龙江通河经济开发区宏伟路3号。

9.  廈門市破产法庭對其中四間位於廈門的全資子公司(即以上第8.1至8.4段描述的公司)(“四間子公司”)擁有司法管辖权。

10.  因此，清盘人认为，根据香港法律，向廈門市破产法庭寻求济助属适当行为，以便（特别及最重要的是）该法院能认可清盘人及其权力，从而允许他：

10.1  索取并从第三方，包括该公司及四間子公司的法定代表人、董事和高管（及曾经担任此等职位的人员）索取并接收一切与该公司或四間子公司及其发起、组成、业务交易、账目、资产、债务或事务有关的文件和信息（包括但不限于外商投资企业批准证书（正副本）、营业执照（正副本）、公章、法人章、银行预留印鉴、财务专用章、合同专用章、发票专用章）和信息（包括但不限于自利邦上海成立以来的财务报表、审计报告、会计账簿、原始会计凭证）;

10.2  找到、保护、取得及管有和控制该公司及四間子公司有权或看似有权在中华人民共和国（“中国”）内地法院管辖权内拥有的一切资产和财产；

10.3  找到、保护、取得及管有和控制该公司及四間子公司在中国内地法院管辖区内的账簿、文件和记录，包括会计和法定记录；

10.4  调查该公司及四間子公司的事务，并在可能必要的范围内针对四間子公司法定代表人、董事或高管（及曾经担任此等职位的人员）对四間子公司实施的不当行为，向中国内地法院提起法律程序和作出一切申请，当中不论是以其自身名义或以公司或四間子公司名义; 及

10.5  行使该公司作为四間子公司的唯一股东的一切权利，包括但不限于通过股东决议对四間子公司进行更改、罢免及任命其法定代表人、董事或高管或进行破产程序。

11.  本案所提交的证据已证明并令本法庭信纳，向廈門市破产法庭提出协助请求符合正义。为使清盘人能够履行其职责，谨请廈門市破产法庭协助本法庭，在其认为适当的范围内，授权清盘人根据适用的内地法律在内地行使香港法律赋予他的所有权力、职责和酌情权。

12.  本法庭谨请廈門市破产法庭为清盘程序及清盘人提供协助，签发命令并指示：

12.1  该公司的清盘程序和清盘人的委任均獲得廈門市破产法庭的认可；及

12.2  清盘人拥有并可行使香港法律赋予他的权力（如上文第7及第10段所载），并可在内地法律允许的最大范围内行使。

13.  本法庭确认，已根据香港的程序和法律发出本请求函及作出相关申请。

14.  为免产生疑问，寻求该协助旨在获得与本法庭因该公司资产专属于本法庭的管辖范围内所授予的济助大致相符的济助。

15.  本法庭进一步确认，香港法院将在类似情况下，并在行使其固有管辖权时，认可廈門市破产法庭的请求函，并就该请求函提供可能需要的协助（受香港法律的适用限制约束）。

日期：2023年11月     日

_________________________

邝卓宏

香港特别行政区

高等法院司法常务官

Appendix B