Another post-Re USUM decision: Hong Kong Court grants disclosure relief in aid of BVI liquidation

In The Joint Liquidators of Bank of Asia (BVI) Limited (in liquidation) v Axiom Financial Group Limited [2026] HKCFI 4694, the Hong Kong Court granted recognition of the liquidation of a BVI-licensed bank and the appointment of its joint liquidators, together with the usual package of assistance orders. In addition, the Court granted a one-stop disclosure order compelling a non-cooperative Hong Kong company to produce information and documents relating to the bank’s affairs.  Tanner De Witt act for the joint liquidators.

Following the Court’s landmark decision in Re USUM Investment Group Ltd [2026] HKCFI 1320 earlier this year, the case provides a further illustration of the Court’s continued willingness to exercise its common law jurisdiction in support of foreign insolvency officeholders, particularly where information and records located in Hong Kong are required for the administration of an overseas insolvency.

Background

Bank of Asia (BVI) Limited, a financial institution incorporated and licensed in the British Virgin Islands, entered liquidation in the BVI. The joint liquidators sought recognition and assistance in Hong Kong in connection with a Hong Kong company which had provided extensive accounting, administrative and IT support services to the bank.

Following their appointment, the joint liquidators sought access to the bank’s books, records and operational information.  Although the Hong Kong company initially indicated that it would cooperate, the anticipated cooperation never materialised. At first, information was provided sporadically.  Then the company took steps to change its name and its registered office address, asserted that it had ceased operations, and eventually ceased communication with the joint liquidators altogether.

The joint liquidators therefore applied for recognition and assistance and for an order requiring the company to produce specified information and documents.

Recognition and assistance

Applying the principles recently restated in Re USUM, the Court recognised both the BVI liquidation and the appointment of the joint liquidators. The liquidation was a collective insolvency proceeding commenced in the BVI, which was both the company’s place of incorporation and its centre of main interests, and there was no public policy reason to refuse recognition.

The Court also granted the usual suite of assistance powers, including powers to obtain information and documents, investigate the company’s affairs, protect assets, retain professional advisers and commence proceedings in Hong Kong where appropriate. Those powers mirrored powers available to the liquidators under BVI law and were supported by letters of request issued by the BVI Court.

Disclosure orders as part of the assistance jurisdiction

The Court reaffirmed that the Hong Kong Court’s power under common law to assist foreign officeholders extends to ordering persons within the jurisdiction to provide information and documents.

This power remains subject to a balancing exercise. The Court must be satisfied that the information sought is genuinely required and that the relief is not unreasonable, unnecessary or oppressive.

An issue arose because the BVI statutory regime distinguishes between:

(1)       the liquidators’ own powers to compel the production of information from certain persons under ss. 281 & 282 of the BVI Insolvency Act (“Act”) without an order of the BVI Court, and

(2)       the Court’s power to compel production of documents under ss. 284 & 285 of the Act.

The Court had to decide whether the power under common law to assist foreign officeholders extends to making an order to compel the defendant to produce the documents sought when the BVI Court had not made an order under ss.284-285 of the Act. With reference to the principles set out in Re USUM, Her Ladyship held that “the power of assistance extends to granting relief which could have been made by the foreign court even though no such order has in fact been made”.

Costs order against non-cooperative defendant

The judgment is also a reminder that parties who fail to cooperate with insolvency officeholders may face adverse costs consequences.

Although the Court noted that the costs incurred by the liquidators in seeking recognition and assistance generally remain matters for the foreign liquidation court, it distinguished the disclosure aspect of the application. The Court concluded that the disclosure application had been necessitated by the defendant’s refusal to comply with the liquidators’ requests and therefore ordered the defendant to bear those costs.

The decision will be of practical interest to insolvency practitioners dealing with records and information located in Hong Kong.  For entities holding books and records of an insolvent company, it serves as a reminder that non-cooperation may ultimately result in both compulsory disclosure orders and adverse costs consequences.