はじめに

ケイマン諸島と香港の裁判所は、この数ヶ月、ケイマン諸島の会社を再編することを目的とするクロスボーダーの申立てについて、関連する法域における裁判所がどのようにこれを処理するのか実用的な方向性を示しました。これは、国際礼譲および修正された普遍主義の原則に沿ったものです。

裁判所のスタート地点

手続が一つ以上のコモンローの法域で開始されたが、清算人の任命が未了の場合、裁判所が修正された普遍主義を適用するためのスタート地点は、倒産の主手続の役割を担うのはどの法域がより適当かということを考えることでしょう。最近の香港およびケイマン諸島の両地域の裁判例では、長年の先例に沿いながら、通常この法域とは会社の設立地であることを確認しました。なぜならば投資家やサービス・プロバイダーおよび債権者が通常関係しているからであり、とりわけ、会社の登録された営業所であったり、その取締役会の義務やその定款を規定する法律の地であるからです。

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.

Reports last week of the significant increase in corporate insolvencies and voluntary liquidations in England and Wales for Q2 demonstrate the combined impact of government COVID-19 support being withdrawn, soaring energy and fuel costs, and weakening demand – and are being reflected in the nature of the instructions coming into our global jurisdictions from distressed companies across the globe.

Introduction

The Grand Court has recently provided helpful clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied when a dispute arises over the identity of the insolvency practitioners proposed to be appointed by a creditor or the company. In Global Fidelity Bank Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)^[1] the Court confirmed the 3-stage test for determining independence and that in applying the test, significant weight should be afforded to the views of the creditors.

Background

The decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (‘the Cayman Court’) to grant common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong (‘the Hong Kong Court’) over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company – without parallel insolvency proceedings in Cayman – is likely to be welcomed widely by insolvency practitioners and lawyers involved in cross-border restructuring and insolvency in common law jurisdictions.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Court) has confirmed that the Court has the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief within winding-up proceedings (In the Matter of Polarcus Limited (In Official Liquidation) (Unreported, Justice Kawaley, 23 June 2022 Cause No: FSD 31 of 2021 (IKJ)).

This is welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders in winding-up proceedings where such declaratory relief may be required and the relief cannot for some reason be included in a standard sanction application.

Background

When a Cayman Islands company (CayCo) goes into official liquidation, various antecedent transactions entered into in the lead up to that liquidation may be set aside, thereby allowing the recovery of assets of the CayCo to maximise the return to its stakeholders. This snapshot sets out a summary of challenges that may be made to antecedent transactions in the Cayman Islands. These may also apply to Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Exempted Limited Partnerships and, in certain circumstances, to foreign companies, but this snapshot focuses on CayCos.

Introduction

In one of the world's largest ever restructurings, Ocean Rig UDW Inc (UDW), a leading international contractor of offshore deep-water drilling services, and three of its subsidiaries have been successful in their application for the sanction of four schemes of arrangement by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, and recognition and enforcement of the schemes under Chapter 15 in the United States of America.

The uncertainty that has descended on global economic markets brought about by the global covid-19 pandemic has been widespread and unprecedented. Anyone looking for clear wisdom on the likely trends in restructuring as we look now to the second half of 2022 and beyond may find the milky darkness of a Magic 8-ball a better barometer of future forecasting.

Here, we provide an overview of the offshore restructuring landscape in light of governmental fiscal stimulus measures introduced due to coronavirus either being reduced, withdrawn or, in some cases, never being put in place.

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.