Seahawk China Dynamic Fund: winding up on just and equitable grounds
In a recent decision, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands grappled with the question of whether the need for an investigation into the affairs of the company is a stand-alone ground for winding up. While the Court did not determine the question conclusively, it did provide an indication of how it may rule if the issue were to be placed squarely before the Court again.
In the Matter of Seahawk China Dynamic Fund
The Privy Council's recent judgment in Weavering[1]upheld the decisions of the Cayman Islands Grand Court and Court of Appeal that payments made to redeemed investors immediately prior to the fund's liquidation were preference payments under section 145(1) of the Companies Law (2018 Revision) (Law), and must be repaid.
A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.
Facts
Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.