At stake in a recent decision by the First Circuit was this: when a bankruptcy matter is before a federal district court based on non-core, “related to” jurisdiction, should the court apply the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? The First Circuit ruled that the former apply, and in so doing joined three other circuits that have also considered this issue. Roy v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.
When a Cayman Islands company (CayCo) goes into official liquidation, various antecedent transactions entered into in the lead up to that liquidation may be set aside, thereby allowing the recovery of assets of the CayCo to maximise the return to its stakeholders. This snapshot sets out a summary of challenges that may be made to antecedent transactions in the Cayman Islands. These may also apply to Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Exempted Limited Partnerships and, in certain circumstances, to foreign companies, but this snapshot focuses on CayCos.
Introduction
The Grand Court has recently provided helpful clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied when a dispute arises over the identity of the insolvency practitioners proposed to be appointed by a creditor or the company. In Global Fidelity Bank Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)[1] the Court confirmed the 3-stage test for determining independence and that in applying the test, significant weight should be afforded to the views of the creditors.
Background
A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.
In 2018, the liquidating trustee for Venoco, LLC and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) commenced an action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking monetary damages from the State of California and its Lands Commission (collectively, the “State”) as compensation for the alleged taking of a refinery (the “Onshore Facility”) that belonged to the Debtors (the “Adversary Proceeding”). The State moved to dismiss, claiming, among other things, sovereign immunity.
A recent matter which came before a strong Court of Appeal panel demonstrates that the BVI Court will continue to come to the aid of creditors pursuing unpaid debts and that they should not necessarily be deterred from pursuing a debt in the BVI even if the security over the debt is in issue.