Overview
In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Court”) concerning a supervision order in respect of a Cayman company in voluntary liquidation, Kawaley J considered the settled principles in a solvent Cayman Islands liquidation involving a dispute as to the identity of the official liquidators to be appointed.
The Proceeding
On 10 September 2021, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a streamlined adjudication process proposed by the joint official liquidators ("JOLs") of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the "Company"), circumventing the requirement for thousands of participants to lodge separate proofs of debt in an insolvent liquidation.
On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.
Background
On 10 September 2021, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a streamlined adjudication process proposed by the joint official liquidators ("JOLs") of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the "Company"), circumventing the requirement for thousands of participants to lodge separate proofs of debt in an insolvent liquidation.
On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.
Background