在某些情况下，开曼公司的官方清算人可能能够采取行动追回公司破产前转移的资产。对于那些关注濒临破产的开曼公司事务的人来说，了解开曼群岛官方清算人和大法院所拥有的法定权力至关重要。

可撤销的优先权

《公司法（修订版）》（「该法」）规定，「在公司无法偿还第93 条所指的债务时，公司为了使该债权人优先于其他债权人而对任何债权人作出、招致、承担或遭受的任何财产转让或转移，或对财产的抵押，以及每项付款义务和司法程序，如果是在清算开始前六个月内作出、招致、承担或遭受的，经公司清算人申请，均可撤销。」

值得注意的是，如果在清算开始前六 (6) 个月内发生、产生、取得或遭受付款，则向开曼公司「关联方」支付的款项应被视为是为了给予债权人优先权而支付，因此，根据公司清算人的申请，该款项可予撤销。

如果债权人有能力控制开曼公司或在公司财务和经营决策方面施加重大影响，则该债权人应被视为「关联方」。

公司在什么情况下无法偿还债务？

若发生下列情况，开曼公司将被视为无力偿还债务：

(a) 未遵守法定要求；

Introduction

In certain circumstances, the liquidator of a British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) company may be able to set aside certain transactions which took place in the lead up to the company’s liquidation. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a BVI company that they are aware of the statutory powers available to the liquidator.

Introduction

Liquidations in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) can be either:

1) an insolvent liquidation and therefore governed by the Insolvency Act 2003 (as amended) (“Insolvency Act”); or

2) a solvent liquidation and therefore governed by the BVI Business Companies Act (as amended) (“Companies Act”). The Companies Act was amended by the BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act 2022 and BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Introduction

Liquidations in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) do not have a rescue function and mark the end of a company’s lifecycle. A liquidation in the BVI can be either:

If you are considering terminating a Cayman company by way of voluntary liquidation or strike-off, it is crucial to adhere to specific deadlines and procedures to avoid unnecessary fees for the year 2024. There will be varying requirements depending on whether the entity is regulated or non-regulated.

Options for termination - voluntary liquidation or strike-off

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.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.