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.
The financing of commercial litigation has grown enormously since it first appeared on the scene in the US, about 15 years ago. While still small relative to the overall US financial market, it is estimated that more than $11 billion has been invested in litigation finance in the US last year alone. In essence, lenders (often referred to as “funders”) provide commercial claimants and contingency law firms with the capital needed to prosecute legal claims which the funders believe have a strong likelihood of success.
Backstop commitments have become commonplace in large corporate bankruptcy cases – they provide certainty to the debtor that it will have the funds needed to satisfy its obligations to creditors under its plan of reorganization and that it will have liquidity to operate post-bankruptcy as the reorganized entity. Backstop commitments are also a way for certain creditors to generate some additional return in the form of commitment fees and expense reimbursements in exchange for their agreement to backstop all or a material portion of a proposed rights offering or other financing arrangement.
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.
Considerations of “environmental, social and governance” (or ESG) criteria with respect to a company’s management and operations continue to take on greater importance in lenders’ and investors’ credit and investment decisions. How a borrower or a target company measures up to these ever-developing ESG standards will impact its cost of capital and value to potential investors and acquirors.
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.
Foreign companies seeking to protect their overseas assets from their creditors have often turned to the United States for immediate relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Establishing jurisdiction in the US for purposes of a bankruptcy filing has proved easy – the establishment of a nominal professional fees retainer with a local law firm on the eve of a bankruptcy filing will suffice.
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?
Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.