Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the Hong Kong High Court regarding the Wahaha family trust case maintains the freezing of $1.8 billion in assets but delays the disclosure of account information until further court instructions are provided, indicating that the substantive issues of the case remain unresolved [3][4][5]. Summary by Sections Legal Proceedings - The Hong Kong High Court rejected Zong Fuli's appeal against the asset freezing order, which was initially issued on August 1, and confirmed that the assets will remain frozen until the Hangzhou court makes a ruling on the substantive issues [3][5]. - The court's decision is seen as a procedural measure to assist the ongoing litigation in Hangzhou, with no definitive conclusions on the substantive legal matters [5][6]. Appeal Reasons - Zong Fuli's appeal included five main arguments: incorrect application of legal standards for the freezing order, lack of prior application for protective measures by the three children, significant defects in the trust's validity, unnecessary overreach in freezing assets, and overly broad disclosure requirements [6][8]. - The court addressed each of these arguments, ultimately denying the appeal but temporarily suspending the requirement for Zong Fuli to disclose account information until a decision on the appeal is made [6][9]. Trust Validity - The core issue in the appeal revolves around the validity of the trust, with Zong Fuli arguing that no valid trust was established [8][9]. - The court emphasized that the determination of whether a trust exists largely depends on the intentions of the parties involved, which will be assessed through the interpretation of key documents [9][10]. Key Evidence - The court referenced three critical documents: a handwritten instruction from Zong Qinghou indicating the intention to establish a trust, a power of attorney signed by Zong Qinghou, and an agreement between Zong Fuli and the three children outlining the conditions for establishing the trust [9][12]. - The interpretation of these documents is crucial, as the court noted that the existence of a trust could be recognized even without a formal written agreement under certain legal frameworks [10][14]. Uncertainties and Implications - The court identified uncertainties regarding the rights of the three children in the assets held in the HSBC account, including unresolved mechanisms for asset distribution and the lack of clarity on the principal's ownership [13][14]. - Despite potential practical difficulties in establishing the trust, the court indicated that such challenges do not invalidate the trust if a complete agreement exists, even if it lacks specific details [14].