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

Following the recent conflicting decisions in HQP Corporation (in official liquidation)1(HQP) and Direct Lending Income Feeder Fund, Ltd (in official liquidation)2 (DLI), Simon Dickson and Laura Stone of Mourant Ozannes (Cayman) LLP consider whether shareholder misrepresentation claims can be admitted in a Cayman Islands liquidation.

The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.

Background

The Grand Court confirms that the Court has the jurisdiction to appoint an alternative voluntary liquidator in place of a Liquidating Agent under a limited partnership agreement.

Background

Many will have waited for a bus only for two to come along at once. So it is in the Cayman Islands, with the ongoing saga as to whether a shareholder can make a claim for misrepresentation in a liquidation and, if so, where such a claim ranks in the order of priority. The rule in Houldsworth barring such claims has been in existence for over 140 years. However, two liquidations have, within weeks of each other, sought to overturn this longstanding rule.

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.

In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.

Background

The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.

Background