The Court of Appeal has provided much needed clarification of the test for validating certain transactions by companies that are subject to a winding-up petition, pursuant to Section 99 of the Companies Law (2020 Revision).
The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has provided much needed clarification of the test for validating certain transactions by companies that are subject to a winding up petition, pursuant to section 99 of the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (the "Companies Law").
The Legal Issue of Principle
Domestic Procedures
What are the principal insolvency procedures for companies in your jurisdiction? | Liquidation: voluntary and official. Cayman does not have an equivalent to the English concept of the company administration or to the Chapter 11 process in the United States. Schemes of Arrangement/“Soft Touch Liquidations” allow the company to enter into an agreement with its shareholders and/or creditors. |
The case concerned royalty payments, which a creditor had a contractual right to receive, arising from iron ore produced at a mine in Sierra Leone.
Background
The case concerned royalty payments, which a creditor had a contractual right to receive, arising from iron ore produced at a mine in Sierra Leone.
The parent company of the Sierra Leonean mining company went into administration and administrators from PwC were appointed. The creditor's director called the administrators to stress the importance of bringing the royalty payments to the attention of a third party purchaser.
The administrators subsequently sold the mine, but did not make the purchaser aware of the royalty issue.
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.
The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.
Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited1, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.