In a comprehensive judgment published on 23 April 2020, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, comprising Moses JA, Martin JA and Rix JA, has provided welcome clarification of the interplay between a contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes arising between shareholders and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to determine whether a company should be wound up on the just and equitable ground.
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).
Supply chain finance products have a well-deserved reputation of being fairly low risk propositions. The majority of facilities are uncommitted, exposures are typically short-term and many counterparties are highly rated and well capitalized.
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. |
Over the past several years, non-recourse receivables financing has been embraced by many major financial institutions and non-bank investors in the US market. With its (i) favorable regulatory treatment for regulated institutions, (ii) perceived positive risk/reward profile and (iii) adaptability to recent technological advancements such as distributed ledger technology (i.e., blockchain), non-recourse receivables financing likely will grow increasingly popular in the US market.
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers.
On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.