Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Executive Summary 

Where multiple Cayman Islands entities in the same corporate structure become subject to insolvency proceedings (e.g. Cayman Islands master/ feeder fund structures), the Cayman Islands Courts will typically seek to appoint the same liquidators at each level where such entities share similarities in circumstances. Doing so typically aligns with the Overriding Objective of the Court to deal with matters economically and efficiently, and in the context of a liquidation, helps protect the interests of stakeholders in the liquidation. 

When a Cayman Islands company is in official liquidation, no proceedings or claims can be commenced against the company without the Cayman Court's permission. This requirement serves as a safeguard for the liquidation estate of the company in liquidation from being unnecessarily depleted at the expense of stakeholders of the liquidation.

We have recently experienced an increase in mandates concerning disputes between shareholders and the Board of a Cayman company, which in many cases, leads to a shareholder applying to appoint provisional liquidators over the Company on a just and equitable basis. Therefore, we considered it important to remind those considering this remedy of the evidentiary hurdles they need to overcome to exercise it successfully.

During the course of 2022, Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (the "Companies Act") will be amended to introduce a new restructuring officer regime available to companies in financial distress, which can be accessed without the need to present a winding up petition to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ("Cayman Court").

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.