Fulltext Search

Broadly, the end of life options for a solvent Cayman Islands company are either a voluntary liquidation or a strike-off. The appropriateness of either method will depend on the business history of the company and its current financial position. The company should ideally have no assets or liabilities before the commencement of either option.

Preliminary steps

Before commencing the dissolution process, it may be necessary to take some preliminary steps, such as ensuring that:

Bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors are a tough sell—always have been.  That’s because no one likes bankruptcy—unless they need it.

But relieving people from debts in unfortunate circumstances is essential to our collective way of life in these United States.  That’s always been true.

What follows is the first of three installments on some history of bankruptcy laws through the ages, beginning with ancient times—and to the present in these United States.

Ancient Days

This Update provides an overview the recent changes to Guernsey's insolvency regime affecting voluntary liquidations.

Introduction

The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, which amends the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law) came into force on 1 January 2023. It is supported by the first set of Insolvency Rules (the Rules) which came into force on the same date.

This Update provides an overview of the key changes concerning voluntary liquidations.

This Regulatory Update provides a snapshot of the key legal developments in the BVI and the Cayman Islands over the last quarter – including amendments to BVI business company fees, the introduction of the BVI Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, and an update on the list of director names which is now publicly available in the BVI. It also contains a reminder of the January 2023 filing deadlines in the Cayman Islands, amendments to the Cayman LLC legislation and details of the highest possible rating given to the Cayman Islands by OECD for effectiveness of AEOI regime.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has issued its first judgment appointing Restructuring Officers under the new section 91B of the Cayman Islands Companies Act, which came into force on 31 August 2022.

Introduction

Preference avoidance provisions are a crucial part of the Bankruptcy Code—contained, primarily, in § 547 & § 550.

States also have a preference avoidance statute—for insiders. It’s in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA)” or in its predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA)).

The insider preference statute appears to be rarely-used and, apparently, little-known. It reads like this:

Amendments to Guernsey's corporate insolvency legislation give liquidators more investigative powers and permit liquidators and administrators to set aside transactions at undervalue.

One of the most powerful investigative weapons in any liquidator's armoury is the ability to compel the production from third parties of information and documents regarding the affairs of the company. Until recently, the precise scope of the liquidator's ability to seek production of such information or documents in Guernsey has been uncertain, relying on ill-defined common law powers.

2022 has been a bad year for the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League:

The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).

That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.

Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?

A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.

What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.

Initial Meeting

A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.

The question presented in Spring Valley is this: