Coco Limited $($the Company$)$ is a private company registered under the Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong. It was incorporated in $2019.$ The company is in the business of property development. Lee is the only director and he holds $80\%$ of the shares in the Company. Chan and Wong are also shareholders holding $10\%$ shareholdings each but they are not directors of the Company. Chan wanted to dictate the running of the Company so that he can pass the business to his son in the future. Therefore, he did not allow Chan and Wong from receiving any information about the Company. Lee used the money of the Company to purchase a lot of low$-$valued land in the New Territories without notifying the other shareholders. When Chan and Wong objected to the land purchase, Lee ignored them and said they did not have the right to interfere with the operation of the business. In order to expand the business, the Company borrowed quite a lot of money. One of the debts was secured by a floating charge over the Company$$s entire assets in September $2020$ and the creditor is Mr$.$ King. The charge has a negative pledge clause. Later, Mr$.$ King discovered that his floating charge was not registered in the Companies Registry. In March $2021,$ the Company further borrowed money from Ace Bank and created a fixed charge over a piece of land in the New Territories which was duly registered. In July $2022,$ the Company could no longer repay its debts to Mr$.$ King and he now wants to petition to court for the winding$-$up of the Company.

Regarding the purchase of the low$-$valued land in the New Territories and Lee$$s view that Chan and Wong could not interfere with the operation of the business, can Chan and Wong seek any remedies from the court?

In the event of winding$-$up$,$ whether Mr$.$ King$$s floating charge or Ace Bank$$s fixed charge will prevail in a situation like this?

Can Mr$.$ King petition to court for the Company$$s winding$-$up$?$ What are the six grounds for compulsory winding$-$up$?$