In a recent decision, Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam dismissed an application to strike out an unfair preference claim brought by the liquidators of RZ3262019 Limited. The judgment provides a significant analysis of issue estoppel, particularly on the novel question of how an issue is characterised when a foreign court has applied a different, higher standard of proof.
Background
2025年8月11日，香港高等法院法官陈静芬对华南城控股有限公司（以下简称“华南城”）下达清盘令。根据路透社报道，华南城是自2021年中国房地产行业陷入债务危机以来，首家在香港被清盘的国有背景房地产开发商。
背景
华南城及其子公司集团（以下简称“集团公司”）是在内地8个主要城市以品牌名称“华南城”运营大型综合物流与交易中心的房地产开发商。
此前，香港法院已两次延期华南城清盘申请的聆讯，然而，香港法院拒绝了本案聆讯的第三次延期请求，并基于以下理由，勒令华南城即时清盘：
On 11 August 2025, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a winding up order against China South City Holdings Ltd (the “Company”). According to Reuters, this is the first state-backed property developer to be wound up in Hong Kong since the Chinese property sector tipped into debt crisis in 2021.
Background
The Company and its group of subsidiaries (the “Group”) is a real estate developer and operates a large scale integrated logistics and trade centre in 8 major cities in the Mainland under the brand name “華南城”.
In the recent high-profile decision of Re: Li Yonghong[2025] HKCFI 3307, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a bankruptcy order against Mr. Li Yonghong — a businessman best known for his prior ownership of AC Milan. The judgment offers important takeaways for bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners on, inter alia, the resolution of inaccuracies or defects in statutory demands and petitions.
Background
Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.
As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.
The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.
For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.
File your proof of claim before the bar date. That’s a principle every creditor in a bankruptcy case should adhere by. But on June 7, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may have increased the degree of diligence parties need to conduct to determine whether they are a potential creditor in a case and therefore required to file a proof of claim.
On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.