This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Introduction

The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:

On 6 October 2023, Parker J handed down his reasons for dismissing an application to bring the voluntary liquidation of Port Link GP Ltd, General Partner (GP) of The Port Fund L.P. (TPF) under the supervision of the Grand Court pursuant to section 124 of the Companies Act. (Section 124)

Adopting the analysis of the United Kingdom Jurisdictional Task Force ('UKJT") on the proprietary status of crypto currencies, a recent decision of the English High Court, AA v Persons Unknown,^[1] has found that crypto assets such as Bitcoin are "property" and therefore capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction or freezing order.

The illegality defence (which aims to prevent a party benefiting from its illegal conduct via legal claims) has been the subject of considerable judicial analysis in commonwealth jurisdictions in recent years.

Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.

Rumours that a company is in the zone of insolvency may create a race to the assets, with potential creditors or interested parties commencing proceedings in an attempt to secure payment from the company before its assets are fully dissipated or tied up in the insolvency process. This can destroy the collective value in the enterprise or scupper a restructuring and result in significant duplicative costs.

Adopting the analysis of the United Kingdom Jurisdictional Task Force ('UKJT") on the proprietary status of crypto currencies, a recent decision of the English High Court, AA v Persons Unknown,^[1] has found that crypto assets such as Bitcoin are "property" and therefore capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction or freezing order.

You can read the infographic version of our guide here.

Scheme of Arrangement (Section 86)

A Court approved compromise entered into between a company and its creditors or members or any classes of them. "Arrangement" is construed extremely broadly making a scheme a very flexible restructuring tool.

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.

Facts