Hong Kong: eHi Car Services Limited Strikes-Out "Abusive" Winding-Up Petition By Minority Shareholder Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has decided that a minority shareholder may not pursue a winding-up petition in order to delay or prevent a Board approved privatisation of the company.

It is an abuse of process to seek to use a winding-up petition, which is class remedy, to further the commercial interests of a particular minority shareholder.

The stringent requirements necessary to support a winding-up petition apply in the context of a privatisation offer and apply whether a winding-up order or alternative orders are sought under section 93(5) of the Companies Law.


The decision in Re eHi Car Services Limited (FSD 63 of 2018, unreported, 29 June 2018) arose in the context of the proposed privatization of eHi Car Services Limited ("eHi" or the "Company"). Carey Olsen represented eHi. Ctrip was represented by Harneys.

The case will provide comfort to Cayman Islands incorporated companies considering or undergoing privatisation. In a detailed judgment, Justice Kawaley (the "Judge") of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Court") decided that the use by Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd ("Ctrip" or the "Petitioner") of a minority shareholder's winding-up petition to further its own commercial interests was an abuse of process and was struck out.

Importantly, the decision now stands as authority for the principle that a minority shareholder may not pursue a winding-up petition in order to delay or prevent a Board approved privatisation offer. The appropriate course for a dissenting minority shareholder is to vote against the privatisation at the EGM and if the privatisation passes, to exercise its dissenting shareholder rights under section 238 of the Law.


eHi is a New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") listed company (NYSE: EHIC) and China's leading car rental services provider. Ctrip forms part of a PRC travel conglomerate. Ctrip is a minority shareholder in eHi.

In December 2017 the Board of eHi approved the creation of a Special Committee to evaluate and negotiate privatisation proposals for eHi. The Special Committee was comprised of three independent directors. It was advised by its own independently retained legal counsel and financial advisors.

A privatisation consortium was formed which included MBK Partners Fund IV, LP, Baring Private Equity Asia Limited and eHi's Chairman, Mr Ruiping Zhang (the "Teamsport Consortium"). The Crawford Group, Inc, a large institutional shareholder of eHi, together with a number of other funds, joined the Teamsport Consortium. Ctrip also entered into negotiations to join the Teamsport Consortium, but ultimately it did not participate. In January 2018, the Teamsport Consortium submitted a preliminary, non-binding proposal to acquire the outstanding shares of eHi for US$6.675 per ordinary share (US$13.35 per ADS) (the "Teamsport Proposal").

Two days before the Board convened a meeting to consider the Teamsport Proposal, eHi received a preliminary, non-binding offer from Ocean Link, with an offer of US$7.25 per ordinary share (US$14.50 per ADS) (the "Ocean Link bid"). The Board later learned that Ctrip was a participant in the Ocean Link bid. In addition, Ocean Link advised the Board that together with Ctrip, it had assumed control of sufficient shares to block the Teamsport Proposal or any other competing bids (but on no view did it have sufficient shares to carry its own bid).

Prior to a meeting of the Board convened to consider the Teamsport Proposal and the recent Ocean Link bid, the Teamsport Consortium increased its offer price to US$6.75 per ordinary share (US$13.50 per ADS) with a deadline for acceptance of 4 April 2018 (later extended to 6 April 2018).

The Special Committee recommended to the Board that it accept the Teamsport Proposal. In turn, the Board met and considered the Teamsport Proposal, the Ocean Link offer and the recommendation of the Special Committee. The Board resolved to enter into the Teamsport Proposal.

Ctrip's abusive winding-up petition

On 13 April 2018, Ctrip presented a winding-up petition against eHi seeking the following orders under section 93(5) of the Companies Law (2018 Revision) (the "Law"):

  1. Declarations that the Board meetings and resolutions of 6 and 10 April 2018 were void;
  2. The Special Committee be required to reconsider the Ocean Link bid and provide its recommendations to the Board with detailed reasons; and
  3. The findings of the Special Committee are to be considered at a duly convened meeting of the Board.

On the same day, Ctrip filed an injunction seeking:

  1. To restrain reliance on any resolutions passed at the 6 and 10 April 2018 Board meetings which approved the Teamsport Proposal or which sought to adversely affect the rights of Ctrip; and
  2. A direction that the Special Committee report to the Board on the viability of the competing bid made Ocean Link.

In response, eHi applied to strike-out/dismiss the winding-up petition on a preliminary basis on various grounds, including that the evidence filed by Ctrip did not support a case for winding-up, suitable alternative relief was available to Ctrip and that in all the circumstances the presentation of a winding-up petition by Ctrip was an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the event, Ctrip abandoned its injunction application shortly before it was due to be heard, after receiving eHi's strike-out application and supporting evidence. Ctrip sought to amend its winding-up petition by making various allegations of misconduct and impropriety against the Directors of eHi. It sought the following amended orders:

  1. A permanent restraint upon eHi from acting on the Board resolutions of 6 April and 10 April 2018;
  2. The Court appoint a person to solicit the highest possible bids for eHi;
  3. The Special Committee be directed to use its best endeavours to fulfil its proper role; and
  4. The Board refrain from issuing further shares prior to an EGM at which privatisation proposals are considered.

Applicable law

Where a winding-up petition is presented by a shareholder of a company on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up, the Court may instead of winding-up the company, make the following "alternative statutory" orders:

  • an order regulating the conduct of the company's affairs in the future;
  • an order requiring the company to refrain from doing or continuing an act complained of by the petitioner or to do an act which the petitioner has complained it has omitted to do;
  • an order authorising civil proceedings to be brought in the name and on behalf of the company by the petitioner on such terms as the Court may direct; or
  • an order providing for the purchase of the shares of any members of the company by other members or by the company itself and, in the case of a purchase by the company itself, a reduction of the company's capital accordingly.

As was common ground amongst eHi and Ctrip, and noted by the Judge, "... the precondition for the alternative statutory remedies under section 95(3) to a winding-up order becoming available was the establishment of grounds sufficient to justify a winding-up order"

In terms of the legal threshold to be met to support Ctrip's winding-up petition, the Judge held that such petition will be dismissed where the company did not cross the forbidden line so as to constitute a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and the conditions of fair play which a shareholder is entitled to expect. In support of this finding the Judge cited the English decision in Loch v John Blackwood [1974] AC 783 and the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands decision in Re The Washington Special Opportunities Fund (FSD 151 of 2015, unreported, 1 March 2016)

eHi's application to strike-out the petition on a preliminary basis was governed by Order 18, rule 9, of the Grand Court Rules. In summary, the Court has jurisdiction to strike-out a petition in circumstances where it:

  • discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;
  • is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;
  • may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or
  • is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court.

The Judgment

The Court struck-out Ctrip's petition in its entirety. The Judge explained that it arose from "... the cynical and abusive presentation of a winding-up petition on the just and equitable ground"

The Judge found that:

  • "far from seeking to advance a class remedy on behalf of other shareholders, [Ctrip] was seeking to advance its own individual commercial interests".
  • "It is obvious that Ctrip's main motive in petitioning is not simply its status as a shareholder but primarily its status as a participant in a rival bid to the one the Board has decided to accept."

The Court found that Ctrip had abused the winding-up jurisdiction and had made a "hopeless" attack on the Board's decision to proceed with the Teamsport Proposal.

In relation to Ctrip's allegations of misconduct against the Board, the Court was equally unimpressed.

Alleged misconduct in relation to the 6 and 10 April Board meetings

In relation to the 6 and 10 April 2018 Board meetings, Ctrip alleged that the meeting notices and agendas were defective, the materials for the 6 April 2018 meeting were supplied too late and the Directors exercised their powers for an improper purpose, namely supporting the Teamsport Proposal over the best interests of eHi.

The Judge found that:

"The pleas in relation to the convening of the two Board meetings were clearly hopeless and bound to fail to establish any impropriety on the Company's part. The only valid complaint was that the meeting papers were delivered unreasonably late, but this was cured by the fact that the second meeting four days later reconsidered the decisions taken at the first meeting."

Validity of the 6 April 2018 resolution

The Court considered the allegation by Ctrip that in approving the Teamsport Proposal the independent directors had acted for an improper purpose. The Judge stated the legal test to impugn the exercise of a power was whether, "the main or substantial purpose for which the power has been exercised must be shown to have been improper...". In considering the main or substantial purpose, the Court will follow the decision of Howard Smith Limited v Ampol Ltd [1974] A.C. 821 where Lord Wilberforce held:

"[The Court] will necessarily give credit to the bona fide opinion of the directors, if such is to be found to exist, and will respect their judgment as to matters of management..."

The Judge noted that the Special Committee had been appointed by eHi and it had retained its own reputable legal and financial advisors. This ensured that the involvement of the Chairman or any shareholder with a nominee on the board did not distort the assessment of a bid in which they were interested having regard to the interests of shareholders generally.

It was further noted that the allegations of improper motives appeared to rest on an assertion (supported by no legal authority), that a company chairman could not be involved in a privatisation, even if the decision to accept or reject the privatisation was substantially made by independent directors. The Judge found this argument to be,"unsustainable" and "...where no evidence was adduced by the Petitioner supporting a potential finding that the bona fides of the independent directors was in question, the bare allegation that they were improperly motivated was bound to fail."

The Court found that whilst there may be cases where the fact that a leading board member was involved in a bid would excite suspicion, "This is not such a case ...There is nothing in the transcripts to suggest any actual impropriety on the Chairman's part. There is no evidential basis for a potential finding that the Special Committee members, despite having retained reputable advisors, were in fact 'lackeys' of the Chairman".

The Judge found that the evidence filed by Ctrip lacked, "any particularised allegations of improper motive on the part of specific directors" , "consisted primarily of argument" and "advocates for the merits of the Ocean Link bid". The Judge held that the "...improper motives allegation is wholly unmeritorious and that it would be an abuse of the process of this Court for such an insubstantial allegation to be further pursued".

Interests of the Chairman were preferred

For substantially the same reasons as set out above, the Court found there was no reason to find that the interests of the Chairman were preferred over the interests of eHi. The Judge found the allegation to be "wholly unmeritorious and that it would be an abuse of the process of this Court for such an insubstantial allegation to be further pursued".

Termination fee was improper and designed to poison rival bids

The merger agreement for the Teamsport Proposal included a termination provision such that a fee would be payable to the Teamsport Consortium in certain circumstances including where eHi abandoned the privatisation to pursue another offer. Ctrip alleged that this was a 'poison pill' which served to deter eHi from accepting any rival bids.

The Judge found that, "the termination fee was a rational and apparently standard commercial clause designed to compensate the Consortium for the risk that a subsequent better bid was accepted... This allegation was on its face clearly unsustainable"

Improper motivation to investigate the CDH transaction

At the 10 April 2018 Board meeting, the Chairman proposed that the Board should authorise the investigation of a transaction by which Ocean Link purportedly gained control of certain shares in eHi held by CDH. It was this transaction that underpinned Ctrip's assertion that it had sufficient votes to block the Teamsport Proposal at an EGM. The Chairman considered that the transaction was prima facie contrary to the provisions of an Investors Rights Agreement between parties including Ctrip and eHi. Ctrip alleged that the investigation was not in the interests of the eHi.

The Judge noted that, "...I found it ironic that Ctrip asserted the right of one bidding team to acquire shares to enable it to block an opposing bid while simultaneously complaining that the Company could not validly seek to respond to such manoeuvres." The Judge stated, "...this allegation is wholly unmeritorious and that it would be an abuse of the process of this Court for such an insubstantial allegation to be further pursued."


The concluding paragraph of the judgment reflects the Court's view of Ctrip's conduct in filing a winding-up petition in the circumstances of this case:

"The complaints of misconduct are unsustainable in the sense that it seems clear at this stage that they are factually incapable of proof and unmeritorious. In addition, the main purpose of the Petition is quite obviously to advance the rival bid supported by the Petitioner, not to advance the class interests of the shareholders the Petitioner is supposed to be representing."

Ctrip's application to restrain the Board from taking steps to proceed with a merger proposal where: (i) it had been reviewed and recommended by an independent Special Committee; and (ii) it was reviewed and adopted at two separate meetings of the Board, was roundly criticised by the Court in strong terms.

This decision of the Grand Court shows that it will act decisively to dismiss a patently abusive winding-up petition, especially in circumstances where a minority shareholder has an ulterior motive and is acting in its own self-interests rather than in the interest of all shareholders.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions