A warm welcome to the Summer edition of Conyers Coverage. The whirlwind that is the Cayman Islands (re)insurance industry continues to blow with gusto! To keep you updated on recent developments, we include various items from our Insurance, Regulatory and Litigation teams, we ponder the possibilities and implications for the Cayman Islands in potentially securing Qualified Jurisdiction status with the NAIC and lots more beyond. We think there’s something for everyone in our latest edition so please dig in.

To NAIC or Not to NAIC?

On August 31, 2022, significant amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (“Act”) took effect to revamp the Cayman Islands restructuring regime. These amendments introduced the new role of a court-appointed “Restructuring Officer” and a dedicated “Restructuring Petition.” The Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime (“RO Regime”) shares certain features with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure in the US and Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

A version of this was first published in INSOL I-Read Student Newsletter, Issue 9, September 2023, and is republished with kind permission of INSOL International.

After a substantial industry consultation process, the Cayman Islands introduced the concept of Court-appointed restructuring officers into Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (the “Companies Act”) with effect from 31 August 2022.

On 11 November 2022, Mr Justice Kawaley ordered the first appointment of restructuring officers inRe Oriente Group Limited (FSD 231 of 2022) under the new Cayman Islands restructuring regime, with reserved written reasons to follow. On 15 November 2022, we provided a brief update on some of the key takeaways from the hearing, which can be found here.

On 11 November 2022, Mr Justice Kawaley ordered the first appointment of restructuring officers inRe Oriente Group Limited (FSD 231 of 2022) under the new Cayman Islands restructuring regime, with reserved written reasons to follow. We provide a brief update on some of the key takeaways from the hearing below.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background