Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Bg Lighting Co. Ltd.

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date22 May 2000
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCCW38/2000
Subject MatterCompanies Winding-up Proceedings
HCCW000038/2000 Re BG Lighting Co. Ltd.

HCCW000038/2000

HCCW3/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO.3 OF 2000

-------------------

IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32

and

IN THE MATTER OF BG Lighting Company Limited

-------------------

AND

HCCW38/2000

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO.38 OF 2000

--------------------

IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32

and

IN THE MATTER OF BG International Limited

---------------------

Coram : Hon Le Pichon J in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 May 2000

Date of Order: 22 May 2000

Reasons Handed Down: 24 May 2000

-----------------------

R E A S O N S

-----------------------

1. These are creditors' petitions. The first is a petition presented on 4 January 2000 against BG Lighting Company Limited ("Lighting"). The underlying debt is based on a Labour Tribunal award for arrears of wages in the sum of approximately $270,000. The other petition was presented on 12 January 2000 against BG International Limited ("International"). The underlying debt is also based on a Labour Tribunal award. The amount of the award was approximately $32,000. Lighting and International (collectively "the Group") are related companies and were represented by its common director Mr Wong Pak Sum. The two petitions were heard together and winding-up orders were made at the hearing on 22 May 2000. The reasons appear below.

2. The petition relating to Lighting first came before me on 20 March 2000. At that hearing, Mr Wong informed the court that it had appointed Horwath Corporate Solutions Limited ("Horwath") to formulate a restructuring proposal and to look for new investors. A letter dated 10 January 2000 from Horwath was exhibited in which Horwath confirmed their appointment as the independent financial adviser of Lighting and stated that their advisory role included the formulation of a restructuring plan which would be presented to the board for consideration as soon as possible. That letter was by then some nine weeks old. Yet, there was no evidence of any progress having been made. At that hearing, Lighting sought and was granted an adjournment of four weeks to present its restructuring proposal and the in-principle support of the majority of its creditors. The need for legal representation should it proceed with a restructuring was brought to Lighting's attention. Given the technicalities that a restructuring would involve, it was simply not realistic for Lighting to believe that a restructuring could be accomplished without legal assistance.

3. Lighting did not engage solicitors, probably due to a lack of financial resources. On 14 April 2000, Mr Wong filed written submissions on behalf of Lighting seeking a dismissal of the petition. Similar submissions were filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT