Following the recent conflicting decisions in HQP Corporation (in official liquidation)1(HQP) and Direct Lending Income Feeder Fund, Ltd (in official liquidation)2 (DLI), Simon Dickson and Laura Stone of Mourant Ozannes (Cayman) LLP consider whether shareholder misrepresentation claims can be admitted in a Cayman Islands liquidation.
The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.
Background
The Grand Court confirms that the Court has the jurisdiction to appoint an alternative voluntary liquidator in place of a Liquidating Agent under a limited partnership agreement.
Background
Many will have waited for a bus only for two to come along at once. So it is in the Cayman Islands, with the ongoing saga as to whether a shareholder can make a claim for misrepresentation in a liquidation and, if so, where such a claim ranks in the order of priority. The rule in Houldsworth barring such claims has been in existence for over 140 years. However, two liquidations have, within weeks of each other, sought to overturn this longstanding rule.
In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.
Background
The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.
The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.
Background
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.