Creditors seeking to enforce an undisputed debt against a solvent foreign non-Hong Kong company in the courts of Hong Kong will welcome the recent judgment of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, as the CFA helpfully backs a broader and more commercially holistic interpretation of a key tenet relating to how Hong Kong courts approach certain threshold assessments involving winding up petitions brought by creditors in Hong Kong against foreign incorporated companies.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has recently ruled In the Matter of Formation Group (Cayman) Fund I, LP (Formation) ¹ that it is possible to bring a just and equitable petition to wind-up an exempted limited partnership (ELP) in its own name, as opposed to that of the general partner (GP). This decision contradicts aspects of Justice Parker's judgment In The Matter of Padma Fund LP (Padma). ² In this update, we consider these conflicting first instance decisions. 

In two relatively recent but unrelated decisions, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has provided helpful guidance in relation to how the Court ought to deal with an application for the appointment of a liquidator in circumstances where the company asserts a cross-claim in an amount exceeding the applicant's debt.

Introduction

A Cayman segregated portfolio company, Performance Insurance Company SPC, was placed into official liquidation. The joint liquidators' appointment extended to all of the underlying segregated portfolios (SPs), some of which were solvent and others insolvent. Two of the solvent SPs applied to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands seeking the appointment of an additional liquidator of the company to separately represent the interests of those solvent SPs on the basis that the original liquidators were conflicted in administering both the solvent and insolvent SPs.

Click here to watch the video

In an ex parte on short notice application, the Cayman Islands Grand Court considered the four hurdles that must be overcome for the appointment of joint provisional liquidators (JPLs).

The application was brought by an individual investor in Seahawk China Dynamic Fund (the Applicant and the Company). The Applicant submitted that he became aware of dishonest conduct on the part of Hao Liang (Mr Liang) who held all of the management shares in the Company.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied motions to dismiss the chapter 11 case of the newly created subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, LTL Management LLC, and granted the debtor’s motion to stay prosecution of actions asserting talc related personal injuries against its J&J affiliates and the products distributors. This is the first opinion outside the North Carolina bankruptcy court approving the use of the so-called Texas Two Step as a bankruptcy execution strategy.

The Motions to Dismiss

In a recent decision,¹ the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered the approach the Court will take when reviewing official liquidators' fees, the extent to which the Wednesbury reasonableness test is relevant and the need to file sufficient evidence in advance of the fee approval application hearing.

The BVI Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the Registrar) maintains a Register of Companies (the Register) which records the name of each company incorporated or continued under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (as amended) (the Act).

This guide examines the procedures by which the name of a company may be struck off, or restored to, the Register under the Act.

What is strike off?

On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company. 

Background