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.

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.

引言

英国终审法院最近就 BTI 2014 LLC 诉 Sequana SA 及其他 [2022 UKSC 25] 一案（“Sequana 案”）颁布一份万众期待的判决。Sequana 案的法理将于开曼群岛以至其他普通法司法管辖权区成为极具说服力的法律根据。

Sequana 案是一项有用的判决，原因如下：

• 该案不但确认董事对股东负有受信责任而须真诚以公司最佳利益行事的传统观点，同时指出董事于公司无力偿债或濒临无力偿债或可能进行无力偿债清盘或管理时，须考虑债权人利益或以其行事（“债权人利益责任”）。
• Sequana 为英国终审法院审理的首宗案件裁定董事于哪些情况下必须考虑公司债权人利益，不论债权人利益责任可否于公司无力偿债前触发，以及股东可否认可对债权人利益责任的潜在违反。

背景

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (the “UKSC”) recently delivered its eagerly anticipated judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others[2022 UKSC 25] (“Sequana”). The reasoning in Sequanawill be highly persuasive in the Cayman Islands, as well as other common law jurisdictions.

Sequana is a helpful decision for at least the following reasons:

A fundamental principle of insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is that upon the commencement of a liquidation of a company, a line is drawn in the sand and the assets of an insolvent company should be distributed on a pari passu basis (e.g. each unsecured creditor should share equally in the available assets of the company). While subject to some exceptions (like any good fundamental principle of law), the concept that all unsecured creditors should be on “equal footing” is the basis for a wide array of insolvency legislation and case law.

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.