6-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 UNDER

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the month of September 2006

Commission File Number: 001-14812

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC.

(Translation of Registrant’s Name into English)

12/F., Kin Teck Industrial Building, 26 Wong Chuk Hang Road, Aberdeen, Hong Kong

(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

Form 20-F  þ        Form 40-F  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

Yes  ¨        No  þ

If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-            .

Attached hereto as Note 1 – Legal Proceedings Update of the Registrant

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein is a press release dated August 11, 2006, titled Global-Tech Appliances Reports Fiscal Year Financial Results and Continues to Pursue New Business Initiatives to Reinvent Itself.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein is a press release dated November 17, 2006, titled Global-Tech Appliances Reports First Quarter Results and Expects Sales of CCMs To Improve in Fiscal 2007.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference herein is a press release dated December 22, 2006, titled Global-Tech Appliances Reports Second Quarter Results And Continues Its Efforts To Secure New CCM Customers.

2

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: January 10, 2007

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC.
By:	/s/ Brian Yuen
	Brian Yuen Assistant Secretary

3

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number	Description
1	Press release dated August 11, 2006
2	Press release dated November 17, 2006
3	Press release dated December 22, 2006

Note 1 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS UPDATE

Except as set forth below, as of January 10, 2007, Global-Tech and its subsidiaries are not a party in any material litigation or arbitration, and know of no material litigation, arbitration or claim threatened against them or their properties.

Certain agreements with ODM customers include an indemnification provision whereby the respective subsidiary undertakes to hold harmless and indemnify the respective customer from all suits that may be brought against the customer for infringement of any patent or registered design in connection with the sale of the products purchased from the subsidiary.

SEB v. Sunbeam v. Pentalpha Enterprises

On March 10, 1998, SEB, S.A. filed a patent infringement suit against Sunbeam Corporation and Sunbeam Products, Inc. (collectively “Sunbeam”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. SEB later amended its complaint to add Global-Tech and one of its subsidiaries, Pentalpha Enterprises, as additional defendants in the case. SEB alleged that the defendants infringed a patent issued to SEB concerning a deep fryer model. SEB sought to recover unspecified monetary damages. In addition, Sunbeam asserted a third-party claim and a cross-claim against Global-Tech and our subsidiary for breach of an alleged obligation to indemnify Sunbeam from SEB’s patent infringement claims. Global-Tech and its subsidiary moved to dismiss the complaint of SEB for lack of personal jurisdiction. By order dated July 16, 1999, the District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against Global-Tech and its subsidiary. Sunbeam then paid SEB $2 million to settle its claim. Sunbeam’s third-party complaint against Global-Tech and its subsidiary remained.

On December 15, 1999, our subsidiary asserted counterclaims against Sunbeam in connection with a product supply agreement. In July 2002, after the case had been transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Sunbeam moved for summary judgment on all claims. By memorandum decision dated February 19, 2003, the District Court granted Sunbeam’s motion insofar as it related to the claim of our subsidiary for fraud in the inducement of the product supply agreement, but denied the motion with respect to the claims of our subsidiary for breach of contract. In addition, the District Court granted Sunbeam’s motion for summary judgment on its claims for indemnity against our subsidiary as to liability, but ruled that a trial was necessary to determine the amount of damages that Sunbeam was entitled to recover on its indemnity claim in addition to the $2 million Sunbeam previously paid to settle SEB’s claims of patent infringement.

The trial on Sunbeam’s claims for indemnity and the claim of our subsidiary for breach of contract began on January 12, 2004. On January 16, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in favor of (i) Sunbeam on its claim for indemnity and awarded Sunbeam $2,450,948.91 against Global-Tech and its subsidiary and (ii) in favor of our subsidiary on its claim for breach of contract and awarded our subsidiary $6,600,000. The District Court entered a final judgment on February 11, 2004 to add prejudgment interest to the Jury’s award, awarding Sunbeam $3,430,693.81 and our subsidiary $6,632,909.59. Our subsidiary filed a motion to reconsider the calculation of prejudgment interest, which the Court denied. Sunbeam moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Sunbeam argued, among other things, that our subsidiary should be denied any recovery and, alternatively, that any recovery by our subsidiary should be limited to $1,000,000. The District Court denied these motions by an order entered April 12, 2004. Sunbeam appealed on May 10, 2004. Global-Tech and its subsidiary cross-appealed on May 21, 2004. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on March 1, 2005.

By decision dated August 12, 2005, the Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit affirmed the judgment in so far as Sunbeam appealed from it and affirmed the judgment in so far as Global-Tech and its subsidiary appealed from it, except that the Court reversed the District Court’s calculation of prejudgment interest and remanded for a recalculation of our subsidiary’s prejudgment interest from June 30, 2001. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was issued on September 12, 2005. The time for Sunbeam to petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court has expired.

Our subsidiary moved in the District Court for an amended judgment to fix the amount of interest to which it is

entitled. Sunbeam opposed the motion on the ground that our subsidiary had not properly calculated the interest to which it is entitled. By amended judgment dated December 12, 2005, the District Court awarded Pentalpha prejudgment interest from June 30, 2001 to February 11, 2004, bringing the judgment entered in favor of Pentalpha as of February 11, 2004 to $8,007,849 and leaving unchanged the judgment entered against Pentalpha in favor of Sunbeam.

On December 23, 2005, Pentalpha filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pentalpha filed its brief on January 25, 2006, arguing that the District Court erred in failing to award it prejudgment interest until the final amended judgment on December 12, 2005. The appeal has been fully briefed. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on November 15, 2006, but has not issued a decision.

Sunbeam has posted a bond in the amount of $5,163,076, which is attached pursuant to the September 7, 2005 order of the District Court in the action SEB S.A, v. Montgomery Ward et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as further described below.

SEB v. Montgomery Ward

After dismissal of the action in the District Court in New Jersey, SEB commenced an action on August 28, 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Global-Tech, one of its subsidiaries and Montgomery Ward, then a customer, for infringement of SEB’s patent relating to a deep fryer model. On December 15, 1999, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction against the sale of the deep fryer that was the subject of the case. This was affirmed on appeal. On August 3, 2000, SEB moved for a further preliminary injunction and a citation for contempt against our subsidiary based upon the sale of a modified deep fryer product by our subsidiary. While that motion was pending, Montgomery Ward filed for bankruptcy protection. That filing stayed SEB’s action as against Montgomery Ward. On March 20, 2001, the District Court found that the modified deep fryer infringed the patent under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the District Court denied SEB’s application for a contempt citation. SEB then moved to amend its complaint to add certain of our other subsidiaries and John C.K. Sham as additional defendants. The District Court, in an opinion dated September 30, 2002, denied SEB’s motion to amend to add additional defendants and denied the motion of Global-Tech to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 3, 2002, Global-Tech and its subsidiary moved for summary judgment on liability on the ground that neither entity had engaged in any conduct that infringed the patent because of the extraterritoriality of their acts and for summary judgment on the claim of SEB for lost profits. The District Court heard oral argument on this motion on March 24, 2004, but has not yet ruled on it.

SEB has also moved for an order attaching the judgment in favor of our subsidiary in the action SEB v. Sunbeam v. Pentalpha Enterprises. The parties resolved the motion by consenting to an order that requires us and our subsidiary, among other things, to give notice to SEB of any attempt to collect the judgment against Sunbeam. On August 19, 2005, our subsidiary notified SEB that it anticipated taking action to enforce the judgment against Sunbeam from the District of Florida. On August 24, 2005, SEB served a renewed motion to attach the entire proceeds of the judgment. The District Court attached the entire judgment by order dated September 7, 2005. Our subsidiary filed a motion on September 22, 2005 to reduce the amount of the attachment to no more than $500,000. SEB has opposed the motion of our subsidiary. The District Court heard oral argument on November 8, 2005, but denied our motion to reduce the amount of the attachment.

By a decision and memorandum dated January 5, 2006, the District Court denied our motion for summary judgment.

The District Court conducted a trial beginning on April 17, 2006. On April 21, 2006, the jury returned a verdict finding that Global-Tech and its subsidiary has infringed the SEB patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and (b), with respect to both the original deep fryer and the modified deep fryer, that the infringement with respect to both deep fryers were willful and that SEB was entitled to a reasonable royalty in the total amount of $4,650,000, representing $3,600,000 for its sales to Sunbeam, $540,000 for sales to Fingerhut and $510,000 for sales to Montgomery Ward.

Both sides have made post-trial motions. We have moved for judgment as a matter of law on a wide range of issues and for a new trial. SEB has moved to enhance damages with the addition of treble damages, prejudgment interest

and attorneys’ fees. The motions have not been fully briefed. Their outcome is uncertain. The District Court has not yet entered any judgment based upon the jury verdict. Accordingly, the amount the amount of the judgment, as well as the timing of its entry are uncertain.

We have accrued for a loss contingency in respect of this litigation in our consolidated balance sheet as at March 31, 2006 in an amount of $4,650,000. An adverse decision in the above action relating to prejudgment interest or treble damages would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Sunbeam v. Wing Shing Products

On February 23, 2001, Sunbeam commenced an adversary proceeding against our subsidiary, Wing Shing Products, in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York asserting that Sunbeam owned U.S. Patent No. Des. 348,585 (the “Design Patent”) or had a permanent license to use it. On March 12, 2001, the subsidiary asserted a counterclaim against Sunbeam for infringement of the Design Patent.

The parties concluded a bench trial in the Bankruptcy Court on January 31, 2002. By decision dated June 3, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court ruled against Sunbeam on its claims for a declaratory judgment and in favor of our subsidiary on its claims for design patent infringement. The Bankruptcy Court further ruled that our subsidiary was entitled to recover Sunbeam’s profits from the sale of infringing coffeemakers only for the time period after February 9, 2001. In addition, on June 17, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an injunction restraining Sunbeam from further infringing the Design Patent. The Bankruptcy Court entered a final judgment in favor of our subsidiary on March 15, 2004, in the amount of $2,304,403.

Sunbeam and our subsidiary appealed the June 3, 2003 decision of the Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. By memorandum opinion and order entered June 30, 2004, the District Court affirmed, in part, the June 3, 2004 decision of the Bankruptcy Court. It reversed one finding of the Bankruptcy Court and held that the subsidiary, in 1992, breached a contract to negotiate with Sunbeam concerning ownership of certain patent rights. However, because the District Court affirmed the holding of the Bankruptcy Court that the statute of limitations had expired on any claim of Sunbeam for that breach, the reversal by the District Court did not affect the $2,304,403 judgment entered in favor of our subsidiary by the Bankruptcy Court. Both Sunbeam and our subsidiary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals from the judgment of the District Court in the action.

On August 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the $2,304,403 judgment that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York had entered on March 15, 2004, in favor of Global-Tech’s subsidiary, Wing Shing Products (BVI) Ltd., against Sunbeam Products, Inc. Sunbeam moved in the Bankruptcy Court for an order extending the stay of the enforcement of the judgment pending the expiration of Sunbeam’s time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court’s disposition of the writ. Over the objection of our subsidiary, the Bankruptcy Court granted Sunbeam’s motion, conditional upon the bond that Sunbeam has previously posted remaining in effect. Global-Tech expects Sunbeam to file its petition for a writ of certiorari by November 23, 2005.

On January 9, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition of Sunbeam for a writ of certiorari. On or about January 12, 2006, Sunbeam wire transferred about $2,353,581 to our subsidiary. Our subsidiary has provided a satisfaction of judgment to Sunbeam and released the bond that Sunbeam has previously posted to secure the judgment. This matter has therefore been concluded.

Wing Shing Products v. Simatelex

On February 9, 2001, Wing Shing Products commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Simatelex Manufactory Corp. claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. Des. 348,585. The Bankruptcy Court stayed this action by order dated February 26, 2001. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reinstated the stay of the action originally ordered by the Bankruptcy Court by order dated February 24, 2004, based upon Sunbeam’s appeal from the June 3, 2003 memorandum decision. By order

dated June 30, 2004, the District Court lifted the stay and directed the attorneys for the parties to appear at a conference on July 23, 2004. The District Court at that time directed the parties to conclude discovery by the end of 2004. Simatelex then moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the New York court and that it did not infringe the design patent because its acts occurred in Asia. Our subsidiary has moved for summary judgment on the ground that Simatelex has infringed the design patent. The District Court again stayed the action by order dated April 18, 2005, pending the resolution of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the action Sunbeam v. Wing Shing.

Following the August 24, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the District Court, by order dated September 14, 2005, lifted the stay and directed that discovery be completed by November 1, 2005.

On November 7, 2005, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability for design patent infringement. The District Court heard argument on these motions on October 27, 2006. It has not yet issued a decision. If the District Court does not grant the motion of Simatelex for summary judgment, a trial will likely be required.

Wing Shing Products v. Sunbeam Products and Simatelex

On May 9, 2006, our subsidiary filed an action in the Untied States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sunbeam Products, Inc. and Simatelex Manufactory Co. Ltd. for infringement of United States Patent Des. No. 348,585 based upon their sale of the coffeemakers designated as the AR Series and the Mr. Coffee Commercial. Defendants have responded to the complaint and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the design patent is invalid. The District Court has directed that all discovery be completed by March 15, 2007.

Best Hero Limited v. Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited

Best Hero Limited issued a Writ in the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong against Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited on October 11, 2004 claiming for payment of $4,250,400 under Action No. 2357 of 2004 for two purchase orders issued on May 31, 2004 and June 1, 2004 respectively to Best Hero Limited for the purchase of a total number of 6,000 pieces of LCD TV panels. On June 24, 2004, 480 pieces of LCD panels were delivered to Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited and a payment of $369,600 was already made to Best Hero Limited. As the quality of the LCD panels delivered by Best Hero Limited was found to be unacceptable, Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited refused to accept further delivery of the remaining order of 5,520 LCD panels from Best Hero Limited. Best Hero Limited alleged that Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited has repudiated the contract and instituted the presented legal proceedings to claim for damages.

A Defence and Counterclaim was filed by Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited on December 28, 2004. The discovery of documents in this action has been concluded and the parties are now in the course of preparing their respective witness statements for exchange.

Global Display Limited v. Mico Electric (Hong Kong) Limited

On September 9, 2005, our subsidiary, Global Display Limited (“Global Display”), issued a Writ in the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong against Mico Electric (Hong Kong) Limited (“Mico”) for payment of $540,000. The claim relates to a purchase contract entered into between the parties in or about November 2004 (“the Contract”) under which Mico agreed to purchase from Global Display 1,500 pieces of LCD TV at a total purchase price of $540,000. Mico refused to accept delivery of the 1,500 pieces of LCD TV and alleged that the LCD TV did not comply with their requirements. Global Display has taken the position that Mico’s refusal to accept delivery of the LCD TVs constitutes a breach of the Contract, and pursuant to legal advice, Global Display instituted the present legal proceedings to file a claim against Mico for the purchase price and/or damages under the Contract.

Mico has filed an Acknowledgement of Service of Writ of Summons stating that it would contest the proceedings. Mico has also filed a Defence and Counterclaim on November 18, 2005. Global Display has filed a Reply and

Defence to Counterclaim on December 16, 2005. On January 24, 2006, Master J. Wong ordered discovery documents between the parties. The parties have exchanged their respective lists of documents. Both Parties are now in the course of preparing witness statements.

Pentalpha v. Reddy Case

On December 22, 2003, our subsidiary, Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited (“Pentalpha”), commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Damoder Reddy, the former Chief Operating Officer of Opsys US, Inc. (“Opsys”), a company whose intellectual property and certain assets (collectively, “Assets”) were purchased by Global-Tech’s subsidiary from the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee of Opsys, alleging that, among other claims, Reddy attempted to interfere with our subsidiary’s contracts with Opsys by making it more expensive for our subsidiary to take possession of the Assets. Reddy filed a cross-complaint against Global-Tech’s subsidiary and six other parties in April 2004, and was dismissed by the District Court on July 8, 2004. After the District Court granted Pentalpha’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Counterclaim, eliminating five of the six claims, leaving a claim that Pentalpha allegedly took personal property from Reddy and the District Court indicated that that claim could be challenged in a subsequent motion, Reddy filed a Third Amended Counterclaim containing what appear to be the same claims previously ruled on by the District Court and therefore is subject to a motion to strike those portions of the complaint. Subsequently, the District Court granted Pentalpha’s motion to dismiss all other parties named in his counterclaim, leaving Global-Tech’s subsidiary and one other party.

After Global-Tech’s subsidiary had propounded written discovery to Reddy on its claims and Reddy provided neither documents nor adequate responses, on September 8, 2005, the District Court awarded Pentalpha $5,812 in sanctions against Reddy, and barred him from presenting evidence in support of his counterclaim other than what he had previously provided. Reddy was also sanctioned $1,817.50 for filing a frivolous motion, and sanctioned $4317.50 for failing to produce documents. He was also ordered to produce all intellectual property currently being used in his new company, Nuelight Corp. that may infringe upon Pentalpha’s. Reddy also underwent a court-ordered psychiatric examination by Pentalpha’s retained expert to determine his mental competence.

In November 2005, Reddy reopened settlement negotiations and agreed to pay $94,000 to Global-Tech’s subsidiary, and to certain other conditions barring Reddy from using Pentalpha’s intellectual property in the future. Reddy also agreed to surrender certain stock in Global Lite Array. The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of settlement on January 23, 2006.

Sunnyside Development Co. v. Opsys USA Corp. et.

On April 12, 2005, our attorney received a copy of a complaint filed by Sunnyside Development Ltd., the former landlord of Opsys US Corp. (“Opsys US”), which asserts a claim under CERCLA for cleanup costs allegedly incurred as a result of Pentalpha’s removal of equipment from Opsys US. Although Pentalpha and Lite Array, Inc. (“Lite Array”) have been named as defendants, no effort has been made to serve Pentalpha’s with the Summons and Complaint and the attempted service on Lite Array appeared insufficient. Lite Array has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for improper service, which is scheduled to be heard on March 3, 2006. Thereafter, Lite Array filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim, which was granted with leave to amend. Although Sunnyside filed an amended complaint, to amend improperly adding Global-Tech USA, Inc. (“Global-Tech USA”) as a defendant without permission of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the amended complaint also appears to have pleading defects. In May 2006, Sunnyside’s counsel proposed a settlement, whereby Lite Array, Pentalpha and Global-Tech USA would be dismissed from the case without prejudice, on the condition that the settling parties consent to enter into an agreement tolling any applicable statue of limitations that have not yet expired for at least a year. This agreement is currently under review.

In addition, Lite Array has filed a claim with its former insurance carrier with respect to the complaint, but coverage for the claim has not yet been determined.

Eastman Kodak/Lite Array OLED License Agreement Dispute

By an agreement dated July 13, 2000, and a restatement and amendment to such agreement, dated as of August 31, 2005, our subsidiary, Lite Array, Inc., entered into an OLED licensing agreement with Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”). In essence, this license agreement permitted our subsidiary to use certain intellectual property rights of Kodak in exchange for the promise of Lite Array to, among other things, pay certain royalties to Kodak. By letter dated September 20, 2005, Kodak served notice that it terminated the license agreement due to the failure of Lite Array to pay certain minimum royalties, subject to the right of Lite Array to cure the claimed default within 60 days. By letter dated November 14, 2005, Lite Array notified Kodak that it has rescinded the license agreement based upon misrepresentations that Kodak made to induce Lite Array to enter into the license agreement and demanded the return of $3.85 million Lite Array had paid to Kodak under the license agreement. Neither party has filed any legal action with respect to this dispute.

EX-1

EXHIBIT 1

Release:	IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:	Brian Yuen
	Global-Tech USA, Inc.
	Tel.: 212-683-3320
Web Page:	http://www.businesswire.com/cnn/gai.shtml

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES REPORTS FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL RESULTS AND

CONTINUES TO PURSUE NEW BUSINESS INITIATIVES TO REINVENT ITSELF

Hong Kong, August 11, 2006 — Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (NYSE: GAI) today announced its financial results for the fiscal year and fourth quarter ended March 31, 2006.

Net sales for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 were $73.8 million, up 76%, compared to $41.9 million in the prior fiscal year. Net loss for fiscal 2006 was $11.2 million, or $0.92 per share, compared to a net loss of $18.6 million, or $1.52 per share, in the prior fiscal year. Included in the net loss for fiscal year 2006 were impairment charges of approximately $2.6 million, or approximately $0.22 per share, which relate primarily to the Company’s organic light emitting diode (OLED) and in part to its liquid crystal display television (LCD TV) programs.

Net sales for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006 were $15.7 million, up 29%, compared to $12.2 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005. Net loss for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006 was $1.2 million, or $0.10 per share, compared to a net loss of $7.5 million, or $0.62 per share, in the prior corresponding fiscal period.

John C.K. Sham, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, said: “While net sales were up and net loss declined in fiscal 2006 compared to fiscal 2005, gross profit margins in the Company’s core business of floor care and kitchen appliance products were and are expected to remain adversely impacted by the continuing increase in material costs, particularly plastic resin, which is a derivative of natural gas and other oil distillates. Additionally, our operating results for fiscal 2006 were further impacted by the continuing low absorption of our manufacturing and administrative fixed overhead resulting from insufficient sales in our core business. In an attempt to improve our financial results, actions have been taken to reduce certain fixed costs, including a reduction in our work force.”

Mr. Sham continued, “We are pleased to report that, in the second half of fiscal 2006, our compact camera module (CCM) components, used primarily in cellular phones, achieved net sales of approximately $5.9 million. We are continuing our efforts to expand the CCM business, including the formation of an experienced R&D team in Taiwan to further enhance our product development capabilities, so that we can maintain technological leadership in the market. We expect this business to continue to grow in the coming quarters as new products are developed and are optimistic that it will improve our financial performance in the near future.”

Mr. Sham concluded, “In addition to the CCM business, we recently introduced and started marketing a line of digital imaging products and anticipate that this new product category will soon become a growing part of our overall business. We are now directing our new product development programs to innovative electronics products as we also continue to explore other business initiatives. We continue to believe it’s essential for us to reinvent and reposition ourselves so that we can take advantage of opportunities that are evolving in this rapidly changing business climate. Despite our net loss for fiscal 2006, our cash and short-term investments were over $46 million as of March 31, 2006, or approximately $3.77 per share, which we believe is more than sufficient to support our ongoing business initiatives and strategies.”

Global-Tech Appliances Inc. is a holding company, owning subsidiaries that manufacture and market a wide range of consumer electrical products worldwide, including floor care products and small household appliances. These products are marketed by customers under brand names such as Black & Decker®, DeLonghi®, Dirt Devil®, Eureka®, Hamilton Beach®, Kenwood®, Presto®, Proctor-Silex®, Sanyo®, Sharper Image®, Sunbeam®, and West Bend®.

Except for historical information, certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “should,” “estimates,” or variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, demand for new and existing products in our core business, the financial condition of the Company’s customers, product demand and market acceptance especially of our new products, the success of new product development especially in the area of cellular phone components and solutions, compact camera modules and other pending projects, reliance on material customers, suppliers and key strategic alliances, the terms and conditions of customer contracts and purchase orders, availability and cost of raw materials, the timely and proper execution of certain business plans, including the plan to diversify and transform a portion of manufacturing capacity to higher-value, technology-oriented products, currency fluctuations, including the revaluation of the Chinese Renminbi, the imposition by China’s trading partners of economic sanctions and/or protective tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods, uncertainties associated with investments, the regulatory environment, fluctuations in operating results, the impact of changing global, political and economic conditions and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission including its most recent Report on Form 20-F. The Company does not undertake to update its forward-looking information, or any other information contained or referenced in this press release to reflect future events or circumstances.

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Amounts expressed in United States dollars)

	Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
	2006			2005
	(unaudited)			(audited)
Net sales	$	73,812,100		$	41,851,163
Cost of goods sold		(69,816,822	)		(44,595,004	)
Gross profit (loss)		3,995,278			(2,743,841	)
Selling, general and administrative expenses		(18,010,869	)		(16,053,820	)
Operating loss		(14,015,591	)		(18,797,661	)
Interest expense		(55,435	)		(9,855	)
Interest income		1,278,093			976,753
Other income (expenses), net		1,533,949			(778,411	)
Loss from operations before income taxes		(11,258,984	)		(18,609,174	)
Provision for income taxes		22,998			(33,650	)
Net loss before minority interests		(11,235,986	)		(18,642,824	)
Minority interests		12,592			19,525
Net loss	$	(11,223,394	)	$	(18,623,299	)
Basic and diluted loss per common share	$	(0.92	)	$	(1.52	)
Basic and diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding		12,223,608			12,214,800

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Amounts expressed in United States dollars)

	March 31,
	2006			2005
	(unaudited)			(audited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	27,313,746		$	8,790,594
Restricted cash		—			430,974
Callable deposit		—			5,000,000
Short-term investments		18,715,682			33,966,281
Accounts and bills receivable, net		8,446,502			7,194,894
Deposits, prepayments and other assets		1,929,626			2,323,895
Other receivable		4,577,186			—
Inventories		10,780,816			14,056,562
Total current assets		71,763,558			71,763,200
Loan to a director		—			76,667
Property, plant and equipment, net		24,164,775			27,779,778
Land use rights		2,151,444			2,191,759
License, net		—			2,201,124
Total assets	$	98,079,777		$	104,012,528
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Short-term bank borrowings	$	37,698		$	37,507
Accounts payable		5,075,248			5,258,005
Salaries and allowances payable		587,717			730,976
Accrued expenses		3,797,401			3,061,568
Accrual for contingent losses		5,464,134			810,000
Income tax payable		3,730,043			3,698,237
Total current liabilities		18,692,241			13,596,293
Deferred tax liabilities		38,619			142,888
Total liabilities		18,730,860			13,739,181
Minority interests		—			12,528
Shareholders’ equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01; 50,000,000 shares authorized; 12,902,755 shares issued as of March 31, 2006 and 2005		129,028			129,028
Preferred stock, par value $0.01; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued		—			—
Additional paid-in capital		83,030,824			83,264,716
Retained earnings		879,673			12,103,067
Accumulated other comprehensive losses		(197,161	)		(742,545	)
Less: Treasury stock, at cost, 679,147 shares as of March 31, 2006 and 2005		(4,493,447	)		(4,493,447	)
Total shareholders’ equity		79,348,917			90,260,819
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	98,079,777		$	104,012,528

EX-2

EXHIBIT 2

Release:	IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:	Brian Yuen
	Global-Tech USA, Inc.
	Tel.: 212-683-3320
Web Page:	http://www.businesswire.com/cnn/gai.shtml

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES REPORTS FIRST QUARTER RESULTS

AND EXPECTS SALES OF CCMs TO IMPROVE IN FISCAL 2007

Hong Kong, November 17, 2006 — Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (NYSE: GAI) today announced its net sales and earnings for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 ended June 30, 2006.

Net sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 were $17.5 million, compared to $17.7 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. Included in net sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 were sales of approximately $2.6 million of CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) camera modules (CCMs), which is a new business that had not commenced in the prior corresponding fiscal period. Net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 was $3.3 million, or $0.27 per share, compared to a net loss of $2.7 million, or $0.22 per share, in the prior corresponding fiscal period. Included in net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 was a non-recurring gain of approximately $4.5 million, which was reflected in other income, net resulting from the establishment of a joint venture with Anwell Technologies Limited (Anwell) in fiscal 2006. Pursuant to this joint venture, the Company sold a 70% stake in one of its subsidiaries to Anwell in exchange for a $5.6 million convertible note, and the full amount of this note was recognized in the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

John C.K. Sham, President and Chief Executive Officer, said: “At the end of fiscal 2006, we established a joint venture with Anwell to exploit synergies related to the production of organic light emitting diode (OLED) systems. While the accounting gain that resulted from this joint venture was the primary reason for our return to profitability in the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we were also able to reduce our operating loss by approximately $1.2 million in this fiscal quarter, compared to the prior corresponding fiscal quarter. Additionally, our cash and short-term investments increased approximately $0.2 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 from our fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.”

Mr. Sham continued, “In the second quarter of fiscal 2006, we took certain steps to reduce our core business overhead in an effort to offset declining margins we experienced last year, and such declines continued into the first quarter of fiscal 2007. Our decision to reduce expenses in our liquid crystal display television (LCD TV) and OLED programs also helped in improving our operating performance in the first quarter of fiscal 2007.”

Mr. Sham concluded, “While sales of our CCMs are expected to increase and grow as a percentage of our total net sales in fiscal 2007, we remain committed to completing our initiatives of reducing costs in our core business, concentrating on new OEM projects, and developing new products to further improve our CCM business. We are cautiously optimistic that we can become an important player in supplying CCMs to the growing cellular phone market and intend to continue dedicating a portion of our resources to further expand our CCM business through the development and marketing of new CCM-related components with broader applications for use in other video imaging devices, such as web cameras and laptop computers.”

Global-Tech Appliances Inc. is a holding company, owning subsidiaries that manufacture and market a wide range of consumer electrical products worldwide, including floor care products and small household appliances. These products are marketed by customers under brand names such as Black & Decker®, DeLonghi®, Dirt Devil®, Eureka®, GE®, Hamilton Beach®, Kenwood®, Pentax®, Presto®, Proctor-Silex®, Sanyo®, Sharper Image®, Sunbeam®, and West Bend®.

Except for historical information, certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “should,” “estimates,” or variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, demand for new and existing products in our core business, the financial condition of the Company’s customers, product demand and market acceptance especially of our new products, the success of new product development especially in the area of cellular phone components and solutions, compact camera modules and other pending projects, reliance on material customers, suppliers and key strategic alliances, the terms and conditions of customer contracts and purchase orders, availability and cost of raw materials, the timely and proper execution of certain business plans, including the plan to diversify and transform a portion of manufacturing capacity to higher-value, technology-oriented products, currency fluctuations, including the revaluation of the Chinese Renminbi, the imposition by China’s trading partners of economic sanctions and/or protective tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods, uncertainties associated with investments, the regulatory environment, fluctuations in operating results, the impact of changing global, political and economic conditions and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission including its most recent Report on Form 20-F. The Company does not undertake to update its forward-looking information, or any other information contained or referenced in this press release to reflect future events or circumstances.

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Amounts expressed in thousands of United States dollars except per share data)

	Three Months Ended June 30,
	2006			2005
	(unaudited)			(unaudited)
Net sales	$	17,503		$	17,698
Cost of goods sold		(15,519	)		(16,519	)
Gross profit		1,984			1,179
Selling, general and administrative expenses		(3,506	)		(3,934	)
Operating loss		(1,522	)		(2,755	)
Interest expense		—			(8	)
Interest income		479			299
Other income (expense), net		4,416			(200	)
Share of loss of a jointly-controlled entity		(57	)		—
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes		3,316			(2,664	)
Provision for income tax		—			(16	)
Net income (loss) before minority interests		3,316			(2,680	)
Minority interests		—			13
Net income (loss)	$	3,316		$	(2,677	)
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per common share	$	0.27		$	(0.22	)
Basic and diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding		12,224			12,224

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Amounts expressed in thousands of United States dollars)

	June 30, 2006			March 31, 2006
	(unaudited)			(audited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	27,313		$	27,313
Short-term investments		18,940			18,716
Accounts and bills receivable, net		10,612			8,447
Prepaid expense		204			253
Deposits and other assets		1,529			1,677
Legal claims receivable		4,577			4,577
Inventories		10,354			10,781
Total current assets		73,529			71,764
Interest in a jointly-controlled entity		424			—
Convertible note, net		5,381			—
Interest receivable on convertible note		42			—
Derivative		87			—
Property, plant and equipment, net		21,779			24,165
Land use rights		2,138			2,151
Total assets	$	103,380		$	98,080
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Short-term bank borrowings	$	37		$	37
Accounts payable		6,738			5,075
Salaries and allowances payable		758			588
Other payable and accrued expenses		3,598			3,797
Accrual for contingent losses		5,464			5,464
Income tax payable		3,694			3,730
Total current liabilities		20,289			18,691
Deferred tax liabilities		39			39
Total liabilities		20,328			18,730
Shareholders’ equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01; 50,000,000 shares authorized; 12,902,755 shares issued as of June 30 and March 31, 2006		129			129
Preferred stock, par value $0.01; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued		—			—
Additional paid-in capital		83,210			83,031
Retained earnings		4,196			880
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		10			(197	)
Less: Treasury stock, at cost, 679,147 shares as of June 30 and March 31, 2006		(4,493	)		(4,493	)
Total shareholders’ equity		83,052			79,350
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	103,380		$	98,080

EX-3

EXHIBIT 3

Release:	IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:	Brian Yuen
	Global-Tech USA, Inc.
	Tel.: 212-683-3320
Web Page:	http://www.businesswire.com/cnn/gai.shtml

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES REPORTS SECOND QUARTER RESULTS

AND CONTINUES ITS EFFORTS TO SECURE NEW CCM CUSTOMERS

Hong Kong, December 22, 2006 — Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (NYSE: GAI) announced today its net sales and earnings for the second quarter of fiscal 2007 ended September 30, 2006.

Net sales for the second quarter of fiscal 2007 were $13.3 million, compared to $19.9 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2006. Net loss for the second quarter of fiscal 2007 was $1.4 million, or $0.11 per share, compared to a net loss of $4.4 million, or $0.36 per share, for the prior corresponding fiscal period.

Net sales for the six months ended September 30, 2006 were $30.9 million, compared to $37.6 million for the prior corresponding six-month period. Included in net sales for the first half of fiscal 2007 were sales of approximately $5.4 million of CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) camera modules (CCMs), which is a venture that the Company had started at the end of the prior corresponding fiscal period. Net income for the first half of fiscal 2007 was $1.9 million, or $0.16 per share, compared to a net loss of $7.1 million, or $0.58 per share, for the first half of fiscal 2006. Included in net income for the first half of fiscal 2007 was a non-recurring gain of approximately $4.5 million, which was reflected in other income, net resulting from the establishment of a joint venture with Anwell Technologies Limited (Anwell) in fiscal 2006. Pursuant to this joint venture, the Company sold a 70% stake in one of its subsidiaries to Anwell in exchange for a $5.6 million convertible note, and the full amount of this note was recognized in the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

John C.K. Sham, President and Chief Executive Officer, said: “While sales of our floor care products declined in this quarter primarily due to model changeovers, sales of our CCMs were up about 8% compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2007. We are making progress in our CCM venture and expect to continue to dedicate a portion of our resources in an effort to secure new CCM customers in the months ahead.”

Mr. Sham continued, “In the second quarter of fiscal 2007, we reduced our operating loss by approximately $2.6 million, compared to the prior corresponding quarter, because of our decision to reduce certain costs, particularly expenses associated with our display programs.”

Mr. Sham concluded, “While our core business will not match last fiscal year’s sales performance, we are continuing to work diligently with our key customers to secure new OEM projects for next fiscal year. Our improved performance in electronic components, along with our ongoing cost cutting initiatives, is expected to offset some of the decline in floor care product sales for the balance of fiscal 2007.”

Global-Tech Appliances Inc. is a holding company, owning subsidiaries that manufacture and market a wide range of consumer electrical products worldwide, including floor care products and small household appliances. These products are marketed by customers under brand names such as Black & Decker®, DeLonghi®, Dirt Devil®, Eureka®, GE®, Hamilton Beach®, Kenwood®, Pentax®, Presto®, Proctor-Silex®, Sanyo®, Sharper Image®, Sunbeam®, and West Bend®.

Except for historical information, certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as

“expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “should,” “estimates,” or variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, demand for new and existing products in our core business, the financial condition of the Company’s customers, product demand and market acceptance especially of our new products, the success of new product development especially in the area of cellular phone components and solutions, compact camera modules and other pending projects, reliance on material customers, suppliers and key strategic alliances, the terms and conditions of customer contracts and purchase orders, availability and cost of raw materials, the timely and proper execution of certain business plans, including the plan to diversify and transform a portion of manufacturing capacity to higher-value, technology-oriented products, currency fluctuations, including the revaluation of the Chinese Renminbi, the imposition by China’s trading partners of economic sanctions and/or protective tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods, uncertainties associated with investments, the regulatory environment, fluctuations in operating results, the impact of changing global, political and economic conditions and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission including its most recent Report on Form 20-F. The Company does not undertake to update its forward-looking information, or any other information contained or referenced in this press release to reflect future events or circumstances.

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Amounts expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except per share data)

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Six Months Ended September 30,
	2006			2005			2006			2005
	(unaudited)			(unaudited)			(unaudited)			(unaudited)
Net sales	$	13,348		$	19,891		$	30,851		$	37,589
Cost of goods sold		(12,549	)		(18,179	)		(28,068	)		(34,698	)
Gross profit		799			1,712			2,783			2,891
Selling, general and administrative expenses		(2,887	)		(6,298	)		(6,393	)		(10,232	)
Operating loss		(2,088	)		(4,586	)		(3,610	)		(7,341	)
Interest expense		—			(10	)		—			(18	)
Interest income		492			330			971			629
Other income (expense), net		247			(121	)		4,663			(321	)
Share of loss of a jointly-controlled entity		(57	)		—			(114	)		—
Income (loss) from operation before income taxes		(1,406	)		(4,387	)		1,910			(7,051	)
Provision for income taxes		—			(16	)		—			(32	)
Net income (loss) before minority interests		(1,406	)		(4,403	)		1,910			(7,083	)
Minority interests		7			—			7			13
Net income (loss)	$	(1,399	)	$	(4,403	)	$	1,917		$	(7,070	)
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per common share	$	(0.11	)	$	(0.36	)	$	0.16		$	(0.58	)
Basic and diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding		12,224			12,224			12,224			12,224

GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Amounts expressed in thousands of United States dollars)

	September 30, 2006			March 31, 2006
	(unaudited)			(audited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	25,165		$	27,313
Short-term investments		19,807			18,716
Accounts and bills receivable, net		10,257			8,447
Prepaid expense		250			253
Deposits and other assets		1,640			1,677
Legal claims receivable		4,577			4,577
Inventories		9,045			10,781
Total current assets		70,741			71,764
Interest in a jointly-controlled entity		367			—
Convertible note, net		5,427			—
Interest receivable on convertible note		84			—
Derivative		74			—
Property, plant and equipment, net		21,076			24,165
Land use rights		2,290			2,151
Total assets	$	100,059		$	98,080
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Short-term bank borrowings	$	—		$	37
Accounts payable		4,876			5,075
Salaries and allowances payable		673			588
Other payable and accrued expenses		3,583			3,797
Accrual for contingent losses		5,464			5,464
Income tax payable		3,694			3,730
Total current liabilities		18,290			18,691
Deferred tax liabilities		39			39
Total liabilities		18,329			18,730
Minority interests		32			—
Shareholders’ equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01; 50,000,000 shares authorized; 12,902,755 shares issued as of September 30 and March 31, 2006		129			129
Preferred stock, par value $0.01; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued		—			—
Additional paid-in capital		83,390			83,031
Retained earnings		2,797			880
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(125	)		(197	)
Less: Treasury stock, at cost, 679,147 shares as of September 30 and March 31, 2006		(4,493	)		(4,493	)
Total shareholders’ equity		81,698			79,350
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	100,059		$	98,080