Jersey is one of the primary jurisdictions for the structuring of investment funds. It is also a popular jurisdiction for the establishment of carried interest vehicles, given the regulatory clarity on treatment of employee incentive and carry schemes.

Ogier regularly assists fund managers where a non-Jersey domiciled individual holding shares or limited partnership interests in a Jersey vehicle dies without leaving a separate Jersey will, giving rise to cross-border probate issues. Often such shares or interests have significant value.

Introduction

On 22 February 2022, Doyle J made a winding up order and appointed joint official liquidators in respect of GTI Holdings Limited (Company), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The winding up order was unopposed and Doyle J was satisfied that the company was insolvent. Nevertheless, in a judgment dated 15 March 2022,  Doyle J articulated the reasons for his hesitancy in making that winding up order.

Background

In the recent decision of Re Formation (Cayman) Fund I, L.P (unreported, 21 April 2022), Justice Kawaley held (notwithstanding the earlier decision of Justice Parker in Re Padma Fund L.P. (unreported, 8 October 2021) in respect of a creditor's petition) that a limited partner may petition to wind up an exempted limited partnership (ELP) on the just and equitable ground by presenting a petition against the ELP directly (rather than against the general partner), and that an ELP may be wound-up in the same manner as a company pursuant to Part V of the Compani

In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

Introduction

The current geo-political climate is contributing to the rapid rise to inflation rates in many countries around the world. Governments have reacted with an inevitable increase to interest rates to try and offer some form of counterbalance to rising costs in an effort to stymy localised, and more widespread, economic recessions.

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has recently delivered helpful clarification on the principles which apply with respect to security for costs when the official liquidators of an insolvent fund seek to bring claims against its former management. Where it is clear to the Court that a defendant was responsible for management decisions immediately before a company entered insolvency, the Court may exercise its discretion, notwithstanding the impecuniosity of the plaintiff company, not to order payment of security for costs.

In March 2019, Liquidators were appointed to The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) by way of a creditors’ voluntary winding up. TASCO owned a large lot of contaminated land – there were stockpiles of construction and demolition waste resulting from a former licensee conducting a materials recycling business.

Defendants to a proceeding related to a breach of an Asset Sale Agreement, successfully joined directors to the action by way of a third party notice, seeking damages for liability incurred where those directors had breached their directors obligations to discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).