Re Dafa Properties Group Ltd (in Liquidation)

HCMP 364-365/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3257

HCMP 364/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 364 OF 2026

___________________

___________________

AND

HCMP 365/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 365 OF 2026

___________________

___________________

(heard together)

__________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________________

1.At the hearing of the originating summonses issued on 9 March 2026 by the Liquidators[1] of DaFa Properties Group Limited (大發地產集團有限公司) (“ListCo”) and YinYi Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited (垠壹香港有限公司) (“YinYi”), I ordered that a letter of request, in the form appended as Annex A[2] and B[3] to this Judgment, be issued to the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court (“Shanghai Court”) seeking recognition of and assistance to the Liquidators to carry out their duties in Mainland China. These are the reasons for my judgment.

Background facts

2.ListCo was incorporated in the Cayman Islands on 18 December 2017. Before its demise, ListCo through its subsidiaries (together “Group”) carried on business in development and sales of residential properties with a focus on Yangtze River Delta Region.

3.In the annual reports and interim reports, the Group was described as a “real estate developer which headquartered in Shanghai” with a principal place of business in Shanghai at No. 2, Lane 1188, Shenhong Road, Minhang District, Shanghai (“Shanghai Office”).

4.Shanghai DaFa Real Estate Group Co., Ltd (“Shanghai DaFa”) is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ListCo with paid-up capital of RMB 500 million and holds most of the Group’s subsidiaries established in the Mainland.

5.As for ListCo, it has since at least 2018 established a principal place of business in Hong Kong where it carried on substantial activities in that:

(1)  it had since 29 March 2018 been registered as a non-Hong Kong company under Part 16 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622);

(2)  its shares were listed on the Main Board of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“SEHK”) (stock code: 6111) on 11 October 2018 until its listing status was cancelled by SEHK on 29 October 2024;

(3)  it had established and maintained a principal place of business in Hong Kong at various offices and the latest one was the Wanchai Office[4];

(4)  it held its last annual general meeting in Hong Kong on 17 June 2022 during which directors were elected, auditors were appointed and mandates were given to the board to issue new shares in Hong Kong;

(5)  according to ListCo’s annual returns for 2023 and 2024 (being the latest annual return filed at the Companies Registry), its authorised representative and company secretary was a Hong Kong resident, and its directors viz., Gao Shan (高山), Chi Jingyong (池淨勇), Feng Yijing (馮義晶) and Fung Chan Man Alex (馮燦文) (“Alex Fung”) used ListCo’s then office[5] as their correspondence address;

(6)  3 of its directors, Wong Chin Hung, Fok Ho Yin Thomas and Alex Fung, are Hong Kong residents;

(7)  it maintained insurance for its full time employees in Hong Kong;

(8)  Listco’s corporate decisions were made out of Hong Kong. Its announcements were issued and published in Hong Kong;

(9)  it has substantial assets in Hong Kong held through 3 indirect[6] wholly owned subsidiaries incorporated in Hong Kong viz., Billion Vast (Hong Kong) Ltd, Moral Sun (Hong Kong) Ltd and YinYi which in turn, hold all the equity in various subsidiaries established in Mainland China including Shanghai DaFa. In addition, ListCo wholly owns 5 other subsidiaries incorporated in Hong Kong;

(10)  it raised funds in Hong Kong by issuing new shares which were traded on SEHK;

(11)  it also raised funds in Hong Kong by issuing various series of notes instruments, all of which (i) were prepared with the benefit of legal advisers in Hong Kong, (ii) offered or sold in Hong Kong to “professional investors” (as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)), and (iii) were listed and traded on SEHK[7]. These include:

(a)  The US$360 million 12.375% Senior Notes due 2022 (ISIN: XS2182881388, common code: 218288138 (“Subject Notes”);

(b)  The US$300 million 12.875% senior notes due 2021 (ISIN: XS2007928828) stock code: 6024;

(c)  The US$200 million 11.5% senior notes due 2021 (ISIN: XS2104465831) stock code: 40138, redeemed on 27 January 2021;

(d)  The US$280 million 9.95% senior notes due 2022 (ISIN: XS2286017640) stock code: 40549; and

(e)  The US$100 million 13.5% senior notes due 2023 (ISIN: XS2400512146) stock code: 40894, trading suspended on 4 April 2022.

(12)  The funds raised by ListCo were used to finance the investments, businesses and operations of the Group in the Mainland.

6.YinYi was incorporated in Hong Kong on 17 January 2018. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of DaFa Blooms Limited (a Cayman Islands company).

7.On 26 February 2024, China Construction Bank (Asia) Corporation Limited, as trustee of the holder of the Subject Notes, presented a winding-up petition (HCCW 110/2024) against Listco and another winding-up petition against YinYi (HCCW 111/2024) (as guarantor of the Subject Notes) on the ground that they had defaulted in payment of the principal and interest under the Subject Notes.

8.On 16 October 2024, this Court made a winding-up order against each of Listco and YinYi on the basis that they were unable to pay their debts[8]. As noted in the WU Judgment:

(1)  The outstanding principal under the Subject Notes accounted for 56% of the outstanding principal under the offshore debts owed by ListCo, which amounted to US$638 million[9].

(2)  ListCo and YinYi did not dispute that (a) they had defaulted in paying the amount payable under the Subject Notes; (b) they were unable to pay their debts; and (c) the 3 core requirements for the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to wind up ListCo (a foreign company) were satisfied[10].

9.By virtue of s.184(2) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”), the winding up of ListCo and YinYi were deemed to have commenced on 26 February 2024.

10.On 16 October 2024, upon the application by the Official Receiver, this Court made a regulating order and appointed the Liquidators to office.

11.At the first creditors’ meeting of YinYi held on 17 January 2025, the creditors resolved to appoint the Liquidators as liquidators of YinYi. Upon the application of the Official Receiver, on 2 April 2025, this Court appointed the Liquidators to office.

12.Since their appointment, the Liquidators have been investigating the affairs, assets and liabilities of Listco and YinYi.

Changes in corporate structure

13.Upon the Liquidators’ investigations, it transpires that after the winding-up petitions had been presented, the corporate structure of the Group was changed. In particular, a series of share transfers and alleged capital injections (collectively “Transfers”) were effected during the period from March to June 2024, with the result that:

(1)  YinYi ceased to be the sole equity holder of various key Mainland subsidiaries;

(2)  Shanghai Quelei Trading Co., Ltd (上海闕磊貿易有限公司) (“SQT”) became a minority shareholder of those Mainland subsidiaries at different levels of the corporate structure; and

(3)  Whilst SQT is an entity within the Group, it is not controlled by YinYi or the Liquidators.

14.In addition to the Transfers, the articles of association of the affected Mainland subsidiaries were amended in March/April 2024 to introduce the requirement of unanimous equity-holders’ approval in respect of various matters including any decision to change the mode of operations and the legal representative of those companies (“Veto Provision”).

15.According to the legal advice obtained by the Liquidators, under PRC law, the Veto Provision (if valid) gives SQT a right to veto any proposed change on legal representative of the relevant Mainland subsidiaries. This has the effect of preventing the Liquidators from taking control over these Mainland subsidiaries if and insofar as SQT refuses to agree with the appointment proposed by the Liquidators. The Liquidators consider that it is necessary to bring proceedings in the Mainland courts to challenge the legality and validity of the Transfers and the amendments to the articles of association of the relevant Mainland subsidiaries.

16.Further, the Liquidators discovered that Gao Shan has ceased to be the director and legal representative of various subsidiaries within the Group.

17.The Liquidators also discovered that YinYi and 2 of its subsidiaries had been involved in numerous ongoing legal proceedings in the Mainland, and YinYi alone had been involved in 9 ongoing legal proceedings.

Difficulties encountered by Liquidators

18.Owing to the hindrance and resistance from ListCo’s former management, the Liquidators have not been able to obtain ListCo’s books and records or access to the Shanghai Office. The Liquidators’ efforts in obtaining books and records may be summarised as follows:

(1)  On 24 October 2024, the Liquidators sent letters to ListCo’s Hong Kong offices and the Shanghai Office giving notice of the winding-up order and requesting information and documents. No response was received.

(2)  The Liquidators sent follow-up letters to the Hong Kong offices on 13 November 2024, and the Shanghai Office on 13 November 2024, 5 December 2024, and 5 February 2025. No response was received.

(3)  In late 2024, representatives of the Liquidators attended the Hong Kong offices in person and found that none of them were used by ListCo.

(4)  Between 24 October 2024 and 9 April 2025, the Liquidators sent requests to ListCo’s former directors requesting them to deliver up ListCo’s books and records and to complete and return a Statement of Affairs. Only 2 former directors, Feng Yijing and Gu Jiong, responded. Both claimed that they had never received any of ListCo’s financial information or accounts beyond what was publicly available, and their responses were of very limited assistance.

(5)  On 24 October 2024, the Liquidators contacted Listco’s current auditor, Prism Hong Kong and Shanghai Limited (“Prism”), and its previous auditor, Ernst & Young (“EY”), to enquire the whereabouts of ListCo’s books and records and request their handover. Prism informed the Liquidators that it could not provide the requested documents due to the “lack of financial information provided by [ListCo]”. EY only provided limited information, which is insufficient for the Liquidators to ascertain and investigate Listco’s assets in Shanghai and elsewhere in the Mainland. Despite multiple requests and EY’s representation that it would provide further documents in early November 2025, no further responses or documents have been provided by EY.

19.Similarly, the Liquidators encountered much difficulties in investigating the affairs of YinYi and taking control over its assets in particular the key Mainland subsidiaries in that:

(1)  On 9 April 2025, the Liquidators sent a letter to YinYi’s San Po Kong Office giving notice of the winding-up order and requesting information and documents. No response was received.

(2)  On 9 May 2025, the Liquidators sent a follow-up letter. No response was received.

(3)  In June 2024, representatives of the Liquidators attended the San Po Kong Office and found that the premises appeared to be occupied by other companies and no longer used by YinYi.

(4)  On various dates between 9 April 2025 and 2 June 2025, the Liquidators sent requests to YinYi’s former directors, Gao Shan and Ge Yiyang, requesting them to deliver up YinYi’s books and records and complete and return a Statement of Affairs. No response was received.

(5)  On 9 April 2025, the Liquidators contacted YinYi’s current auditor Prism, and previous auditor EY, to enquire the whereabouts of YinYi’s books and records and request their handover. Despite reminder letters sent on 9 May 2025 and 2 June 2025, Prism did not provide any financial information of YinYi. EY only provided limited information, which is insufficient for the Liquidators to ascertain and investigate YinYi’s assets in Shanghai and elsewhere in the Mainland. Despite the Liquidators’ multiple requests and reminders and EY’s representation that it would provide further documents in early November 2025, no further responses or documents has been provided by EY.

20.The Liquidators believe that the books, accounts and documents of ListCo and YinYi have been kept in the Shanghai Office, which was described as the Group’s headquarters. At least one of the former directors of ListCo and YinYi, Gao Shan, appears to be in Shanghai, where he previously served as legal representative and sole director of at least 5 subsidiaries of YinYi in Shanghai.

21.It was against the above background that the Liquidators made the present applications for assistance from the court.

Discussion

22.The principles on recognition and assistance of insolvency proceedings pursuant to the Cooperation Mechanism entered into on 14 May 2021 by the Supreme People’s Court and the Government of Hong Kong have been summarised by this Court in Re PPLive Sports International Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1850, §14 and Re Hong Kong Lee Yuan International Group Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1971, §17, and recently applied by Madam Recorder Eva Sit SC in Re Ecogreen Fine Chemicals Group Ltd [2025] HKCFI 6222, §19. In short, an applicant needs to show that:

(1)  the application is made by a liquidator in insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong;

(2)  the recognition and assistance are sought from a court at a pilot area in the Mainland;

(3)  the order sought is for recognition of the Hong Kong liquidator’s office, and grant of assistance for discharge of his duties and carry out his functions as liquidator of the company concerned;

(4)  Hong Kong has been the centre of main interests (“COMI”) of the company in liquidation continuously for at least 6 months. For this purpose, COMI “generally means the place of incorporation of the debtor. At the same time, the people’s court shall take into account other factors including the place of principal office, the principal place of business, the place of principal assets etc. of the debtor.”

(5)  The company’s principal assets in the Mainland are in a pilot area, or it has a place of business or a representative office in a pilot area.

(6)  The recognition and assistance sought are necessary to enable the liquidator to carry out his functions as liquidator of the company in the Mainland.

23.Each of the above requirements has been satisfied in respect of ListCo and YinYi.

24.First, the applications are made by the Liquidators, who were appointed by the Hong Kong court on 16 October 2024 (in the case of ListCo) and 2 April 2025 (in the case of YinYi).

25.Second, the recognition and assistance are sought from the Shanghai Court, which is one of the 3 pilot areas under the Cooperation Mechanism.

26.Third, the order sought is for recognition of the Liquidators’ office and grant of power to assist them in the discharge of their duties and functions as liquidators of ListCo and YinYi.

27.Fourth, Hong Kong has been the COMI of Listco and YinYi for more than 6 months in that:

(1)  Hong Kong has been the COMI of ListCo continuously for more than 8 years (see §5 above) and continued after commencement of liquidation (see §§7-10 and 12 above).

(2)  Similarly, Hong Kong has been the COMI of YinYi since its incorporation in 2018 and continued after commencement of its liquidation (see §§6-12 above).

28.Fifth, ListCo has a place of business in Shanghai, and its principal assets are located in Shanghai (see §§3-4 above). In particular:

(1)  In ListCo’s annual and interim reports, the Group was described as a “real estate developer which headquartered in Shanghai”, with a principal place of business in Shanghai at the Shanghai Office.

(2)  The amount due from Shanghai DaFa to Listco (RMB 9,979,443) represented over 68% of Listco’s total trade receivables as at 31 December 2021.

(3)  The Liquidators have identified at least 15 indirect subsidiaries of ListCo in Shanghai, all of which are held through Shanghai DaFa. In addition, the Liquidators have identified a further 24 direct subsidiaries established in Shanghai, all of which are held by Shanghai DaFa (collectively “24 Shanghai Subsidiaries”).[11]

(4)  The majority of the Group’s investment properties are in Shanghai and are held by Shanghai DaFa, with a total fair value of RMB 1,243 million as at 31 December 2021.

29.Similarly, YinYi has a place of business in Shanghai, and its principal assets are located in Shanghai:

(1)  As a principal subsidiary within the Group whose headquarters is in Shanghai, ListCo’s place of business in Shanghai must also be a place of business of YinYi.

(2)  YinYi directly holds 99% of the equity in Huaique (Shanghai) Enterprise Management Co., Ltd and 100% of the equity in Hanque (Shanghai) Investment Co., Ltd, both companies are established in Shanghai[12].

(3)  The majority of the Group’s investment properties are in Shanghai and are held by Shanghai DaFa, with a total fair value of RMB 1,243 million as at 31 December 2021, comprising (a) Shanghai IST Mall (RMB 1,113.1 million); (b) office units at Harbour Ring Plaza (RMB 57.2 million); and (c) Xijiao Manor (RMB 73.2 million)[13].

(4)  Most of YinYi’s receivables are due from Shanghai subsidiaries including Shanghai DaFa (RMB 254 million) and Shanghai Kaiyang Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (RMB 263 million) which together represent 42% of YinYi’s total receivables as at 31 December 2020[14].

(5)  YinYi has substantial assets in Shanghai as it holds 99% of the equity of all the 24 Shanghai Subsidiaries.

30.Sixth, it is necessary for the Liquidators to seek recognition and assistance from the Shanghai Court to carry out their duties and functions as liquidators of ListCo and YinYi in the Mainland:

(1)  As set out in §§18-20 above, despite their extensive efforts, the Liquidators have not been able to obtain the books and records of ListCo and YinYi or access to the Shanghai Office.

(2)  The Liquidators require the Shanghai Court’s assistance to (a) take over YinYi’s Shanghai assets and business interests; (b) commence litigation to set aside the Transfers and restore YinYi’s ownership and control over the relevant Mainland  subsidiaries; and (c) deal with the extensive ongoing litigation in the Mainland involving YinYi and its subsidiaries.

(3)  Without the Shanghai Court’s assistance, the Liquidators will not be able to obtain those books and records or properly investigate and administer ListCo and YinYi’s affairs and assets for the benefit of their creditors.

Terms of order

31.At the hearing, this Court observes that an important issue which the courts of the pilot areas will need to consider and be satisfied is whether the COMI of the company concerned is in Hong Kong. This is particularly so where the company is not incorporated in Hong Kong as in the case of ListCo. To assist the Hong Kong court and the courts of the pilot areas in dealing with an application, for recognition and assistance, counsel for the liquidators should set out the factual matters in support of their contention that the COMI of the company is in Hong Kong, both in their skeleton submissions and the draft letter of request submitted to the court. This is necessary as the courts in both jurisdictions are often expected to deal with the application expeditiously. This can only be done if the liquidators and their legal representatives have done their utmost to assist the courts in considering and dealing with the application. They cannot expect the courts to trawl through the voluminous documents and identify the relevant factual matters for them.

32.The powers of assistance sought by the Liquidators, as stated in the draft letter of request, are the powers conferred on and exercisable by the Liquidators under the CWUMPO. In the case of ListCo:

(1)  A table summarising the powers stated in the letter of request and the relevant provisions under the CWUMPO is annexed as Annex C hereto.

(2)  The scope of the powers sought is more focused than in previous cases such as Re PPLive Sports and Re Hong Kong Lee Yuan.

(3)  Consistent with the necessity requirement, and having regard to the Liquidators’ primary purpose of obtaining Listco’s books and records and taking possession of their assets in Shanghai, the powers sought in the letter of request are materially identical to those set out in the letters of request issued in Re PPLive Sports and Re Hong Kong Lee Yuan, save that it does not include the power to bring or defend legal proceedings in the Mainland or to take control of any of Listco’s indirect Mainland subsidiaries, consistent with the more focused scope of the relief sought.

33.As for YinYi:

(1)  A table summarising the powers stated in the letter of request and the relevant provisions under the CWUMPO is annexed as Annex D hereto.

(2)  The scope of the powers sought is broader, which I consider to be necessary and justified having regard to (a) YinYi’s direct shareholding interests in all the Mainland subsidiaries including the 24 Shanghai Subsidiaries; (b) the need to deal with the Transfers and the ongoing Mainland litigations; and (c) the need to exercise YinYi’s rights as the majority equity-holder of the Mainland subsidiaries.

34.This Court made an order in the proceedings:

(1)  Authorising the issue of a letter of request in the form of Annex A and Annex B hereto[15] (as revised) to the Shanghai Court seeking recognition and assistance in aid of Listco and YinYi’s liquidation and their Liquidators;

(2)  The Liquidators’ costs, subject to taxation, be paid out of the assets of Listco and YinYi; and

(3)  Liberty to apply.

Mr Michael Lok and Mr Charlie Liu, instructed by Kobre & Kim (HK) LLP, for the Liquidators

Annex A

香港特别行政区

高等法院

原讼法庭

杂项案件编号：2026 年 364 号

____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

根据认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点方案发出的司法协助请求函

______________________________________________________________________________

致：上海市第三中级人民法院（“上海法院”）

鉴于：

1.  本法庭是对香港特别行政区（“香港”）的公司法和破产法行使管辖权的法庭。

2.  大发地产集团有限公司（DaFa Properties Group Limited）(“该公司”）是一家于2017年12月18日根据开曼群岛法律注册成立的公司。

3.  该公司于2018年3月29日注册为非香港公司，公司编号为F24204，而商业登记证号码为69145904。

4.  该公司曾在香港联合交易所（“联交所”）上市，直至2024年10月29日其上市地位被取消。

5.  基于以下因素，该公司的主要利益中心已在香港连续存在6个月以上：

5.1.  2024年2月26日，中国建设银行（亚洲）股份有限公司，以该票据持有人的受托人身份，向本法庭提出将该公司及间接子公司垠壹香港有限公司（“垠壹”）清盘的呈请。该公司是该票据的发行人，而垠壹是其中的担保人。

5.2.  2024 年10 月16 日，本法庭命令对该公司及垠壹进行清盘，理由是其无力偿还债务。

5.3.  该公司的清盘程序于香港进行。

5.4.  2024年10月16日，本法庭发出命令，确认委任罗兵咸永道（PricewaterhouseCoopers） 的庄日杰先生和苏文俊先生两人担任该公司的共同及个别清盘人（“清盘人”）。

5.5.  该公司曾2018年10月至2024年10月在联交所主板上市，股份代号为6111。

5.6.  该公司已于2018年3月29日根据香港的《公司条例》( 第 622 章 )第16部注册为非香港公司，并向香港税务局进行商业登记。

5.7.  该公司此前在香港具有主要营业地点，即香港湾仔皇后大道东248号大新金融中心40楼 ，此前为香港上环干诺道中168-200号信德中心招商局大厦9楼911室、香港中环夏悫道12号美国银行中心28楼2805-06室及香港湾仔皇后大道东28号金钟汇中心18楼。

5.8.  根据该公司于2022年4月28日在联交所网站上发布的2021年年度报告，该公司根据香港相关法律及法规为其在香港的全职员工购买社会福利保险，包括养老保险、医疗保险、工伤保险、失业保险及生育保险。

5.9.  该公司的公司决策曾于香港作出，包括但不限于香港发布公司公告，以及于香港召开周年大会（最近一次周年大会为2022年6月17日）。

5.10.  该公司间接全资拥有至少8家香港子公司，包括：

5.10.1.  上文提及的垠壹；

5.10.2.  亿浩(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2817403) ；

5.10.3.  益盛(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2823610) ；

5.10.4.  忠辉(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2823616) ；

5.10.5.  创汉有限公司 (香港公司编号2818132) ；

5.10.6.  润来(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2823631) ；

5.10.7.  冠堡(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2751280) ；

5.10.8.  凯洲(香港)有限公司 (香港公司编号2845041)。

5.11.  该公司曾在香港进行各种集资活动。 除了在联交所上市外，该公司亦根据香港上市规则第37章发行债务证券，包括：

5.11.1.  2022年到期的360,000,000美元12.375%优先票据（国际证券号码：XS2182881388；共同代号：218288138；代号：40328）(“该票据“)；

5.11.2.  2021年到期的300,000,000美元12.875%优先票据（国际证券号码：XS2007928828；代号：6024）；

5.11.3.  2021年到期的200,000,000美元11.5%优先票据（国际证券号码：XS2104465831；代号：40138，于2021年1月27日赎回，其后被取消及从联交所除牌）；

5.11.4.  2022年到期的280,000,000美元9.95%优先票据（国际证券号码：XS2286017640；代号：40549；及

5.11.5.  2023年到期的100,000,000美元13.5%优先票据（国际证券号码：XS2400512416；代号：40894，于2022年4月4日暂停买卖）

（统称 “该联交所上市票据”）。

5.12.  该联交所上市票据在香港发售或出售。

5.13.  跟据该票据日期为2020年12月11日的补充发售备忘录：

5.13.1.  该公司委任中国建设银行（亚洲）股份有限公司作为香港受托人、付款及转让代理及登记人，其通讯地址为香港中环干诺道3号中国建设银行大厦28楼；及

5.13.2.  该票据的初始购买人包括瑞士信贷（香港）有限公司、国泰君安证券（香港）有限公司、香江证券有限公司、钟港资本有限公司及海通国际证券有限公司，均为在香港注册成立的公司。

6.  该公司为总部位于上海且主要在中国内地从事房地产开发的集团公司（“大发集团”）的最终控股公司。

7.  根据香港法（包括《公司 (清盘及杂项条文) 条例》（第32章）第197 条、第199 条、第286B条及附表25），清盘人已获授权共同及个别地作出以下行为（其中包括）：

7.1.  将该公司有权享有或看似有权享有的所有财产及据法权产，收归该清盘人保管或控制 (第 197条）；

7.2.  以该公司名义和代表该公司提起任何诉讼或其他法律程序，或以该公司名义和代表该公司在任何诉讼或其他法律程序中答辩（第199(2) 条、附表25 第2 部第1 项）；

7.3.  藉公开拍卖或私人合约，出售该公司的土地财产、非土地财产及据法权产，并有权将该等财产及权产全盘转让予任何人或任何公司，或将它们分拆出售 （第199(3) 条、附表25 第3 部第1 项）；

7.4.  以该公司名义和代表该公司作出所有作为及签立所有契据、收据及其他文件，并可为该目的而在有需要时，使用该公司印章（第199(3) 条、附表25第3部第2项）；

7.5.  调查该公司失败的因由及其在交易及事务中就此作出的处理（第286B条）；

7.6.  委任代理人，以从事清盘人不能亲自从事的任何业务（第199(3) 条、附表25第3部第7项）；

7.7.  作出为结束该公司事务及派发该公司资产而需要作出的所有其他事情（第199(3)条、附表25 第3 部第9 项）。

8.  清盘人认为，鉴于以下事实，若要根据香港法律有效行使他们的权力，需要上海法院认可他们的委任：

8.1.  清盘人相信该公司的前董事，包括高山先生、葛一旸先生、冯义晶先生、池净勇先生、杨洋先生、杨永武先生、孙冰先生、冷俊峰先生、廖鲁江先生目前在内地。

8.2.  除冯义晶先生及顾炯先生外，自2024年10月24日起，清盘人多次要求该公司现任及前任董事提供资产负债状况说明书，并将该公司所有资产、账簿、文件及文书交付清盘人，但清盘人未收到任何回复。 冯义晶先生及顾炯先生均声称，除了该公司网站或联交所网站上公开的资料外，他们从未收到任何该公司的财务资料或账目。

8.3.  自2024年10月24日起，清盘人多次向该公司的香港注册地址和主要营业地点以及在上海的营业地址发出要求该公司向清盘人交付公司所有资产、账簿、文件和文书，但清盘人从未收到任何回复。

8.4.  清盘人无法进入该公司的香港注册地址和主要营业地点，而且这些香港办公室看似均未被该公司使用。

8.5.  清盘人相信该公司的账簿保存在其位于上海市闵行区申虹路1188弄2号的办公室。 该公司现任审计师栢淳会计师事务所有限公司告知清盘人他们从未收到该公司提供的任何账簿和记录，而清盘人从该公司前任审计师安永会计师事务所仅收到有限的账簿和记录。

8.6.  清盘人履行职责时受到阻碍，原因是该公司现任及前任董事（据信大部分身处内地）均未向清盘人提供任何该公司的会计账簿、文件或文书。

9.  因此，清盘人认为，根据香港法律，向上海法院寻求济助属适当行为，以便（特别及最重要的是）该法院能认可清盘人及其权力，从而允许他们：

9.1.  向第三方，包括该公司现任和前任管理人员、代表及/或高管索取并接收有关该公司资产、账簿、文件和文书的信息；

9.2.  寻找、索取、取得、保护、保全、管有和控制该公司有权或看似有权在中国内地法院管辖权内拥有的一切资产和财产；

9.3.  寻找、索取、取得、保护、保全、管有和控制该公司在中国内地法院管辖区内的账簿、文件及记录，包括银行对账单、会计和法定记录；

9.4.  保护该公司所享有的财产不被非法转移，以此维护该公司及其债权人的合法权益。

10.  本案所提交的证据已证明并令本法庭信纳，向上海法院提出协助请求符合正义。为使清盘人能够履行其职责，谨请上海法院协助本法庭，在其认为适当的范围内，授权清盘人根据适用的内地法律在内地行使香港法律赋予他们的所有权力、职责和酌情权。

11.  本法庭谨请上海法院为清盘程序及清盘人提供协助，签发命令并指示：

11.1.  该公司的清盘程序和清盘人的委任均得上海法院的认可；及

11.2.  清盘人拥有并可根据香港法律（如上文所述）行使可供其使用的权力，并在内地法律允许的最大范围内行使权力。

12.  本法庭确认，已根据香港的程序和法律发出本请求函及作出相关申请。

13.  为免产生疑问，寻求该协助旨在获得与本法庭因该公司资产专属于本法庭的管辖范围内所授予的济助大致相符的济助。

14.  本法庭进一步确认，香港法院将在类似情况下，并在行使其固有管辖权时，认可上海法院的请求函，并就该请求函提供可能需要的协助（受香港法律的适用限制约束）。

日期：2026年  月  日

_________________________

邝卓宏

香港特别行政区

高等法院司法常务官

Annex B

香港特别行政区

高等法院

原讼法庭

杂项案件编号：2026年 365号

______________________________________________________________________________

根据认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点方案发出的司法协助请求函

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

致：上海市第三中级人民法院（“上海法院”）

鉴于：

1.  本法庭是对香港特别行政区（“香港”）的公司法和破产法行使管辖权的法庭。

2.  垠壹香港有限公司（YinYi Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited）(“该公司”），是一家于2018 年1 月17日根据香港法律注册成立的公司，公司编号为2642318 ，商业登记证号码为68832388。该公司于香港的主要营业地点为香港新蒲岗爵禄街33号Port 33大厦9楼904B室，此前为香港上环干诺道中168-200号信德中心招商局大厦9楼911室及香港中环夏悫道12号美国银行中心28楼2805-06室。

3.  该公司为DaFa Blooms Limited的全资子公司，亦是以上海大发房地产集团有限公司（“上海大发”，主要营业地位于上海）为总部且主要于中国内地发展房地产的大发地产集团（“大发集团”）的一部分。

4.  大发集团的最终控股公司是大发地产集团有限公司（DaFa Properties Group Limited）（“大发母公司”），其于2017年12月18日根据开曼群岛法律注册成立的公司，并于2018年3月29日注册为非香港公司，公司编号为F24204和商业登记证号码为69145904。

5.  大发母公司在香港联合交易所（“联交所”）上市，直至2024年10月29日其上市地位被取消。 大发集团的大部分经营子公司均通过该公司持有。

6.  基于以下因素，该公司的主要利益中心已在香港连续存在6个月以上：

6.1.  2024年2月26日，中国建设银行（亚洲）股份有限公司，以票据持有人的受托人身份，向本法庭提出将该公司及大发母公司清盘的呈请。大发母公司是该票据的发行人，而该公司是其中的担保人。

6.2.  2024 年10 月16 日，本法庭命令对该公司及大发母公司进行清盘，理由是其无力偿还债务。

6.3.  该公司的清盘程序于香港进行。

6.4.  2025年4月2日，本法庭发出命令，确认委任罗兵咸永道（PricewaterhouseCoopers） 的庄日杰先生及苏文俊先生两人担任该公司的共同及个别清盘人（“清盘人”）。

6.5.  该公司于香港成立，并向香港税务局进行商业登记。

6.6.  该公司始终在香港具有注册地址。

7.  根据香港法（包括《公司 (清盘及杂项条文) 条例》（第32章）第197 条、第199 条、第286B条及附表25），清盘人已获授权共同及个别地作出以下行为（其中包括）：

7.1.  将该公司有权享有或看似有权享有的所有财产及据法权产，收归该清盘人保管或控制 (第197条)；

7.2.  以该公司名义和代表该公司提起任何诉讼或其他法律程序，或以该公司名义和代表该公司在任何诉讼或其他法律程序中答辩（第199(2) 条、附表25 第2 部第1 项）；

7.3.  藉公开拍卖或私人合约，出售该公司的土地财产、非土地财产及据法权产，并有权将该等财产及权产全盘转让予任何人或任何公司，或将它们分拆出售（第199(3) 条、附表25 第3 部第1 项）；

7.4.  以该公司名义和代表该公司作出所有作为及签立所有契据、收据及其他文件，并可为该目的而在有需要时，使用该公司印章（第199(3) 条、附表25第3部第2项） ；

7.5.  调查该公司失败的因由及其在交易及事务中就此作出的处理（第286B条）；

7.6.  委任代理人，以从事清盘人不能亲自从事的任何业务（第199(3) 条、附表25第3部第7项）；

7.7.  作出为结束该公司事务及派发该公司资产而需要作出的所有其他事情（第199(3) 条、附表25 第3 部第9 项）。

8.  清盘人认为，鉴于以下事实，若要根据香港法律有效行使他们的权力，需要上海法院认可他们的委任：

8.1.  清盘人相信该公司的唯一董事高山先生目前在内地。

8.2.  清盘人相信该公司的前唯一董事葛一旸先生目前在内地。

8.3.  自2025年4月9日起，清盘人多次要求该公司现任及前任董事提供资产负债状况说明书，并将该公司所有资产、账簿、文件及文书交付清盘人，但清盘人从未收到任何回复。

8.4.  自2025年4月9日起，清盘人多次向该公司的注册地址发出要求该公司向清盘人交付公司所有资产、账簿、文件和文书，但清盘人从未收到任何回复。

8.5.  清盘人无法进入该公司的香港注册地址和主要营业地点，而且这些香港办公室看似均未被该公司使用。

8.6.  清盘人相信该公司的账簿保存在大发集团于上海市闵行区申虹路1188弄2号的办公室。 该公司现任审计师栢淳会计师事务所有限公司告知清盘人他们从未收到该公司提供的任何账簿和记录，而清盘人从该公司前任审计师安永会计师事务所仅收到有限的账簿和记录。

8.7.  清盘人履行职责时受到阻碍，原因是该公司现任及前任董事（据信全部身处内地）均未向清盘人提供任何该公司的会计账簿、文件或文书。

8.8.  该公司于中国内地上海的资产包括持有淮阙（上海）企业管理有限公司99%的股权以及瀚阙（上海）投资有限公司100%的股权。

8.9.  清盘人发现，在针对该公司发出清盘呈请后不久，由于目前未知的原因，该公司若干子公司的股权发生变更，暂时变更原因不明，以致该公司不再持有这些子公司的100%股权。受到上述股权变更影响的该公司子公司包括该公司曾经直接全资持有的淮阙（上海）企业管理有限公司以及温州凯旸企业管理有限公司；以及该公司曾经间接全资持有的上海大发、上海淮斯磊实业发展有限公司。这些股权变更的整体影响是稀释了该公司在上述子公司内的拥有权权益，亦令清盘人无法透过非诉讼的方式取得该公司国内子公司的控制权。

8.10.  该公司目前似乎至少涉及9宗在中国内地进行的诉讼。

9.  因此，清盘人认为，根据香港法律 ，向上海法院寻求济助属适当行为，以便（特别及最重要的是）该法院能认可清盘人及其权力，从而允许他们：

9.1.  向第三方，包括该公司现任和前任管理人员、代表及/或高管索取并接收有关该公司资产、账簿、文件和文书的信息；

9.2.  寻找、索取、取得、保护、保全、管有和控制该公司有权或看似有权在中国内地法院管辖权内拥有的一切资产和财产，包括淮阙（上海）企业管理有限公司99%的股权以及瀚阙（上海）投资有限公司100%的股权；

9.3.  寻找、索取、取得、保护、保全、管有和控制该公司在中国内地法院管辖区内的账簿、文件及记录，包括银行对账单、会计和法定记录；

9.4.  保护该公司所享有的财产不被非法转移，以此维护该公司及其债权人的合法权益；

9.5.  调查该公司的事务，并在可能必要的范围内针对任何笫三方或与该公司有关联的任何一方，向中国内地法院提起法律程序和作出一切申请，当中不论是以其自身名义或以该公司名义；及

9.6.  行使该公司作为任何中国内地公司股东的一切权利，包括但不限于通过股东决议，以变更、免除及/或委任任何该等公司的法定代表人、董事或高级管理人员。

10.  本案所提交的证据已证明并令本法庭信纳，向上海法院提出协助请求符合正义。为使清盘人能够履行其职责，谨请上海法院协助本法庭，在其认为适当的范围内，授权清盘人根据适用的内地法律在内地行使香港法律赋予他们的所有权力、职责和酌情权。

11.  本法庭谨请上海法院为清盘程序及清盘人提供协助，签发命令并指示：

11.1.  该公司的清盘程序和清盘人的委任均得上海法院的认可；及

11.2.  清盘人拥有并可根据香港法律（如上文所述）行使可供其使用的权力，并在内地法律允许的最大范围内行使权力。

12.  本法庭确认，已根据香港的程序和法律发出本请求函及作出相关申请。

13.  为免产生疑问，寻求该协助旨在获得与本法庭因该公司资产专属于本法庭的管辖范围内所授予的济助大致相符的济助。

14.  本法庭进一步确认，香港法院将在类似情况下，并在行使其固有管辖权时，认可上海法院的请求函，并就该请求函提供可能需要的协助（受香港法律的适用限制约束）。

日期：2026年  月  日

_________________________

邝卓宏

香港特别行政区

高等法院司法常务官

Annex C

Annex D