News & Events

High Court orders Evergrande to wind up in Hong Kong’s biggest liquidation

Company and Insolvency

At the 6th hearing of the petition, presented by Top Shine Global Ltd. on 22 June 2022, Madam Justice Linda Chan on 29th January 2024 ordered the winding-up of China Evergrande Group (“Company“). The hearing of the petition had been adjourned on 5 previous occasions on the Company’s application on the grounds that it wished to put forward a comprehensive restructuring plan and that it was in negotiations with its offshore creditors. Leo Remedios, represented the Petitioner in this case.

At the hearing on 29th January 2024 the Company applied for a further adjournment of 3 months on the grounds that it wished to put forward a newly revised restructuring plan. The court refused the Company’s application on the basis that there was no proper basis upon which it could exercise its discretion to grant a further adjournment of the petition which had been ongoing for 19 month. The Company had “no restructuring proposal, let alone a viable proposal which has the support of the requisite majorities of creditors” (§49).  The court was of the  view that “the interests of the creditors will be better protected if the Company is wound up by the court, so that independent liquidators can take control over the Company, secure and preserve its assets and review and formulate a restructuring proposal if they consider that such course is appropriate” (§49).

The full judgment in Re China Evergrande Group [2024] HKCFI 363 can be viewed here.

Leo Remedios and Xizhen Wang, instructed by K.B. Chau & Co., acted for the Petitioner.


Leo Remedios

Leo was called to the Bar in the UK in 1978 and in Hong Kong in 1979.  He practices in Land Law, Chancery, Commercial Law and Company Law.

This article was first published on 31 January 2024.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.