Sep 2026
Key Takeaways
- The recent Cayman and Hong Kong decisions in Re Ourgame International Holdings Limited establish that courts will not rubber-stamp liquidators’ requests for broad or hypothetical powers.
- In Cayman, Doyle J declined to grant blanket Part I powers absent evidence justifying the need for each power sought.
- In Hong Kong, Harris J granted substantial recognition and assistance but refused omnibus powers that would place Cayman liquidators in the same position as Hong Kong-appointed liquidators.
- Recognition of a Cayman liquidation in Hong Kong remains available even where the company’s Centre of Main Interest (COMI) is in Hong Kong rather than the Cayman Islands.
- Practitioners should identify each power sought, explain why it is necessary, and support the application with focused evidence directed to the practical needs of the liquidation.
The Cayman and Hong Kong decisions in Re Ourgame International Holdings Limited deliver a consistent message. Whether liquidators seek sanction for powers in Cayman or recognition and assistance in Hong Kong, the relief must be identified, justified, and supported by evidence. Neither court will simply rubber-stamp broad or hypothetical requests.
Our teams in Cayman and Hong Kong advise liquidators on appointment orders, recognition, and assistance on a regular basis. As explained in the Ourgame rulings, it is important that these applications are framed with precision and that practitioners do not overreach.
What Powers Do Liquidators Need When Seeking Recognition in Hong Kong?
When Cayman-appointed liquidators need to recover assets, obtain records or investigate affairs in Hong Kong, recognition and assistance from the Hong Kong Court will often be essential.
The Hong Kong Court’s decision in Re Ourgame International Holdings Limited [2026] HKCFI 4671 confirms that, although Hong Kong’s recognition framework places significant emphasis on the relevant company’s Centre of Main Interest (COMI), this does not preclude Cayman-appointed liquidators from seeking recognition and assistance where the powers sought are properly justified.
The decision is therefore a helpful one for officeholders. The Court recognised the Cayman liquidation and granted a substantial suite of powers enabling the joint official liquidators (JOLs) to perform their principal functions in Hong Kong. The Court made clear that recognition did not place the JOLs in precisely the same position as liquidators appointed under Hong Kong’s Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) or automatically carry every power available under that statutory regime.
The Hong Kong decision should, however, be read together with the earlier Cayman Islands judgment: Re Ourgame International Holdings Limited [2026] CIGC (FSD) 16. Although the two courts considered different forms of relief, the judgments point in the same direction. Liquidators should identify the powers they actually require and place before the court evidence explaining why those powers are needed in the particular liquidation.
What Happened in the Ourgame Case?
Ourgame International Holdings Limited was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed in Hong Kong. On 3 March 2026, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands wound up the company and appointed JOLs. The JOLs subsequently sought recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. They accepted that the company’s COMI was in Hong Kong, rather than the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Court authorised them to seek recognition in Hong Kong and the PRC.
The Hong Kong recognition application was made to seek conventional powers to obtain information, secure assets and take control of company records. It also included broader wording permitting the JOLs to exercise powers as if appointed under Hong Kong law, together with an express ability to seek examination orders.
What Did the Cayman Court Decide?
The Cayman judgment arose on the determination of the winding-up petition. The draft order sought advance authority for the JOLs to exercise a wide range of powers under Part I of Schedule 3 to the Cayman Companies Act without further sanction. The verifying affidavit, however, did not address the powers sought.
Doyle J noted that the evidence contained only brief references to ongoing Hong Kong proceedings and bank accounts in the PRC, with “no meat on those bare bones”.
Doyle J reiterated the principles in Re UCF Fund Ltd 2011 (1) CILR 305. Section 110(2) of the Cayman Companies Act (2026 Revision) distinguishes between Part I powers, which require the sanction of the Court, and Part II powers, which may be exercised without sanction. It has been observed that the Court should not eliminate that statutory distinction by granting blanket authority in advance. Ordinarily, an application for sanction should relate to a specific decision, transaction, or proposed course of action and should be supported by evidence explaining its nature and purpose.
The Grand Court was satisfied that the evidence justified the power to engage and pay Cayman attorneys and foreign lawyers in Hong Kong and the PRC, and to seek recognition in those jurisdictions. It was not satisfied that the remaining Part I powers were justified. The JOLs were left free to investigate further and return to the Cayman Court with evidence supporting a future sanction application, if necessary and appropriate.
Does COMI Affect Recognition of Cayman Liquidators in Hong Kong?
In Hong Kong, Harris J confirmed that the fact that a company’s COMI is in Hong Kong does not necessarily prevent recognition of Cayman-appointed liquidators acting under the law of incorporation. The distinction affects the legal basis and scope of assistance rather than the availability of recognition itself.
In Ourgame, the real issue was not recognition, but the extent of the powers that should accompany it (i.e., the scope of the assistance). As in the earlier Cayman decision, the Court focused on whether the powers sought were necessary and justified by the evidence, rather than treating the application as a matter of routine.
What Powers Did the Hong Kong Court Grant?
Applying that approach, the Hong Kong Court recognised both the Cayman liquidation and the appointment of the JOLs. It also authorised the JOLs to:
- request and receive documents and information from third parties concerning the company;
- locate, protect, secure and take control of the company’s assets and property in Hong Kong;
- obtain and preserve the company’s books and records and investigate its affairs and insolvency;
- prevent the disposal of assets and secure bank balances;
- apply to the Hong Kong Court for further orders and relief;
- operate, open or close bank accounts; and
- retain legal, accounting and other professional advisers.
These were substantial powers, and this decision confirms that a Cayman liquidation can be made practically effective in Hong Kong. Importantly, however, the relief granted reflected the same principle articulated by Doyle J in Cayman: powers are not conferred as a matter of course. Rather, they must be justified by the evidence and shown to be necessary for the liquidators to perform their functions in the particular liquidation.
Are There Limits to the Powers Granted on Recognition?
The Cayman and Hong Kong judgments concern different aspects of the insolvency process, but they deliver the same message: powers are not granted as a matter of course.
In Cayman, Doyle J refused most of the requested Part I powers because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. In Hong Kong, Harris J granted substantial recognition and assistance but declined to confer powers beyond those justified by the evidence and the applicable legal framework.
The common theme is straightforward. Whether seeking sanction in Cayman or recognition and assistance in Hong Kong, liquidators should identify the powers they require, explain why those powers are necessary, and support the requests with evidence directed to the practical needs of the liquidation.
Against that background, practitioners should:
- avoid seeking blanket or hypothetical powers;
- identify each power sought and the legal basis for the relief;
- explain the specific asset, record, transaction or investigation to which the power relates;
- demonstrate why the relief is necessary and proportionate; and
- return to court if subsequent investigations reveal a properly evidenced need for additional powers.
Conclusion
Read together, the Cayman and Hong Kong Ourgame decisions confirm that substantial cross-border assistance remains available. The key is not the breadth of the powers sought, but the justification for them. Whether in Cayman or Hong Kong, applicants should expect to demonstrate why each power is required and support that request with focused evidence. Courts are willing to provide meaningful assistance, but they will not simply rubber-stamp the relief sought.
We are here to help liquidators and other stakeholders navigate these issues. We have extensive experience across our Cayman and Hong Kong teams in dealing with applications of this sort. Please contact the authors or other members of the Conyers team with any questions, comments, or concerns.