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
The last 12 months has seen a number of court applications being made for extensions of time to register a security interest under s293 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) and/or s588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to avoid collateral vesting in the grantor upon an insolvency event.
On 10 May 2021 in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq)(receivers and managers apptd)[i] the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the application of the Peak Indebtedness Rule to a running account ‘single transaction’ under section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in unfair p
In Bechara v Bates,[1] the Full Federal Court reminds us of the proper procedure for review of a sequestration order made by a registrar. This case raises an important point about bankruptcy practice and procedure in the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court.
In Ross, in the matter of Print Mail Logistics (International) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Elias,[1] the Federal Court considered the extent to which a Jones v Dunkel[2] inference can be made.
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.