Read the full judgment text of HCCW 594/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 May 2001 before Chu J..
Company law – winding-up – just and equitable ground – section 168A Companies Ordinance (Cap 32) – abuse of process – open offer to purchase minority shares – suitability and reasonableness of offer – expert valuation – equality of arms – family company dispute – Whether the Revised Offer by the 1st respondent to purchase the petitioners' shares at an expert-determined value was a suitable and reasonable offer such that continued pursuit of the winding-up petition constituted an abuse of the process of the court – Whether the offer provided equality of arms between the parties – Whether HYHT should be joined as a petitioner – Whether paragraphs relating to alleged failure of discovery should be allowed in re-amendment – A family company dispute involving alleged impropriety in the 1995 settlement agreement, the 1998 Rights Issue Exercise where the 1st respondent's shareholding was increased from 26.86% to 68.75% by allotment of 8,126 shares at alleged gross under-value using $257.8 million, and the Interstitial Scheme involving alleged channelling of $789 million of company funds through offshore companies – The court held that the present case involved complicated issues of facts and law regarding the Rights Issue Exercise and the Interstitial Scheme that an expert valuer lacked the proper machinery to adjudicate – The hybrid structure of the Revised Offer, combining expert valuation with leaving disputes to the court, did not achieve economy and expedition and was unsatisfactory – The Revised Offer did not provide equality of arms as it only enabled petitioners to access information and make submissions when required by the valuer, which was insufficient given allegations of suppression of information by the 1st respondent – The Revised Offer was not suitable and reasonable, and the petitioners had not acted unreasonably in rejecting it – It was not unreasonable for the petitioners to seek to extend the offer to HYHT, another family company with a potential cause for complaint – HYHT was a proper party and should be joined as a petitioner – Paragraphs 121A to 121H concerning alleged failure of discovery were not proper allegations for a winding-up petition and were disallowed – 1st respondent's summons to strike out or stay the Amended petition dismissed with costs to the petitioners with certificate for 2 counsel – Petitioners granted leave to re-amend except for paragraphs 121A to 121H – Costs of the petitioners' summons and the re-amended petition to the 1st respondent against the petitioners in any event.
Legal issues: Whether the Revised Offer constitutes a suitable and reasonable offer making continued pursuit of the petition an abuse of process · Whether the Revised Offer provides equality of arms between the parties · Whether the petitioners acted unreasonably in seeking to extend the offer to HYHT · Whether HYHT should be joined as a petitioner · Whether paragraphs 121A to 121H of the proposed re-amendment should be allowed
Outcome: The 1st respondent's summons to strike out or stay the amended petition was dismissed. The petitioners' summons for re-amendment was granted in part, with HYHT joined as a petitioner but paragraphs 121A to 121H disallowed.
Cites 1 case