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.
Although there are occasions when formal insolvency proceedings are unavoidable, there are many cases where a consensual, out-of-court approach is more appropriate and desirable.
We are often engaged to assist creditors, directors and other stakeholders with negotiating standstill agreements or restructuring support agreements to give breathing space to put new terms in place and allow the relevant corporate entity (or group) to continue as a going concern.
The new restructuring regime in the Cayman Islands distinguishing between winding‑up and recovery gives multinationals another option, say Alex Davies and Spencer Vickers
Recent amendments to part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act have updated the domestic restructuring regime and introduced the new role of a court‑appointed restructuring officer and a dedicated restructuring petition. The Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime shares certain features with the administration regime in the UK and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure in the US.
These continue to be challenging times and we recognize that the need for cross-border advice on insolvency and restructuring matters may be required at short notice. Conyers’ attorneys are insolvency and restructuring experts. We are well-equipped to advise at all stages where financial stability becomes an issue and innovative solutions are required.
The Complications Involved with Cross-Border Restructuring
On 21 April 2023, the English High Court handed down its written reasons for sanctioning the Adler Group restructuring plan proposed under the new Part 26A regime of the UK’s Companies Act 2006, which raised questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, cross-class cram downs, pari passu issues and competing valuations.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.