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.
On July 19, 2024, Judge Michael Wiles of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in In re Mercon Coffee Corporation, Case No. 23-11945, invalidating insider releases in a proposed chapter 11 plan on the basis that the releases were improper retention-related transfers.
Judge Wiles found that he could not approve the releases – even though the debtors had promised them and insiders had relied upon that promise – because the releases did not meet the strict requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(c).
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the US Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to confirm a chapter 11 plan that releases non-debtors from similar or related claims the creditors could assert directly against them.
In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, businesses find themselves at the intersection of technological innovation and geopolitical and economic turbulence. Despite the increased reliance on software systems and digital infrastructure, it remains peculiar that in many EU Member States there's still no clear framework for handling software licenses in insolvency.
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.