The timing of the commencement of the voluntary liquidation of a Cayman Islands company was often driven primarily by the desire to avoid incurring the following year’s annual government fees. To avoid those fees, the liquidation had to commence by December, with the final meeting being held before the end of January. This timetable resulted in an effective dissolution date into the next calendar year, while still avoiding the government fees for that year.

As annual invoices are being generated for those BVI companies that are registered in the first half of the year, it is time to start planning the liquidation of those entities that have reached the end of their life cycle, to ensure that unnecessary fees are not incurred.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2018 government registration fees, an appointed voluntary liquidator will be required to file the final notice for a company on or before 31 May 2018. In order to meet this deadline, we recommend that the voluntary liquidation commence prior to 30 April 2018.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2018 government registration fees, an appointed liquidator will be required to hold the final general meeting for a company or file the final dissolution notice for an exempted limited partnership on or before 31 January 2018.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.

As year end approaches, it is time to start planning the liquidation of Cayman Islands entities that have reached the end of their life cycle to ensure that unnecessary fees are not incurred.

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.