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.
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?
JANUARY 2022 BVI | CAYMAN ISLANDS | GUERNSEY | HONG KONG | JERSEY | LONDON mourant.com 2021934/82 67 1 01 9/1 UPDATE BVI Court refuses to give effect to foreign insolvency law to override ownership rights under BVI law Update prepared by Eleanor Morgan, Jennifer Jenkins and Shane Donovan (British Virgin Islands).
The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.
In the October 2021 edition of IBA Insolvency and Restructuring International, Peter Hayden and Jonathan Moffatt explain recent decisions in the UK and the Cayman Islands on the narrowing of the rule in Prudential and its implications for shareholders and creditors considering litigation.
Introduction
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following: