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.
11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):
- “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”
There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.
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).
Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.
On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:
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.
A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.
The Problem
Here’s the problem: