The following briefing provides a round-up of the Cayman legal and regulatory developments during the third quarter of 2022 that may be of interest to funds clients. We are pleased to note that there is nothing critical or requiring immediate action at this time.
Summary of recent legal and regulatory developments
The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
Domestic procedures
Cross border
Creditors
Avoidance transactions
Contributions to liquidation estates and liability of officers
This article answers FAQs on restructuring and corporate recovery options available in the Cayman Islands.
This article answers FAQs on restructuring and corporate recovery options available in the Cayman Islands.
Question |
|---|
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. |
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