Introduction
This Guide explains the procedure for liquidation proceedings in Guernsey, which are separated into two types: (i) voluntary liquidation and (ii) compulsory liquidation.
Liquidation proceedings
Voluntary liquidation
The provisions for the voluntarily winding up a company under Guernsey law are set out in Part XXII of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Law).
Commencement
It is common for construction project owners to finance projects through multiple mortgages, especially in times of rising construction costs. However, when an insolvency situation arises, holdback priority claims from contractors and subcontractors are particularly complex when there are multiple building mortgages involved. The Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) provided new clarity in this regard in its April 29, 2022 decision in BCIMC Construction Fund Corp. et al.
Understanding limitation periods are of crucial importance in the construction industry, particularly when a contractor is faced with unpaid invoices for services or materials rendered. The Ontario Court of Appeal stepped back into the spotlight in this regard with its decision in Thermal Exchange Service Inc. v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1289, 2022 ONCA 186, in holding that a defendant's assurances may prolong the "discoverability" of a claim for non-payment.
Background
BVI | CAYMAN ISLANDS | GUERNSEY | HONG KONG | JERSEY | LONDON mourant.com 2021934/84097043/1 GUIDE Insolvency procedures for Guernsey companies Last reviewed: August 2022 Contents Introduction 2 Modern corporate insolvency proceedings 2 Administration 2 Liquidation 3 Voluntary liquidation 3 Compulsory liquidation 3 Scheme of arrangement 4 Statutory process 4 Three-stage mechanism 4 Approval and challenges 4 Receivership 5 The traditional procedures 5 Désastre 5 Saisie 6 Out-of-court restructurings and consensual workouts 6 Legislative changes 6 Conclusion 7 Contacts 7 BVI | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
The Cayman Islands Government has published a Commencement Order confirming that the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2021 will come into force on 31 August 2022.
The Amendment Act introduces a new corporate restructuring process and the concept of a dedicated restructuring officer into the Cayman Islands Companies Act (2022 Revision).
Under the Amendment Act, the filing of a petition for the appointment of a restructuring officer will trigger an automatic global moratorium on claims against the company, giving it the opportunity to seek to implement a restructuring.
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.
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.