The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has provided much needed clarification of the test for validating certain transactions by companies that are subject to a winding up petition, pursuant to section 99 of the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (the "Companies Law").
The Legal Issue of Principle
With the rampant spread of COVID-19 worldwide, there are increasing concerns as to the financial impact of the outbreak. With forced business closures a potential reality, it seems inevitable that the Australian economy is on its way to a recession.
It is therefore critical that directors of companies are fully aware of the extent of their duties and understand what they must do to comply.
On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.
Appointing a provisional liquidator
Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.
Overarching eligibility
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
Adopting the analysis of the United Kingdom Jurisdictional Task Force ('UKJT") on the proprietary status of crypto currencies, a recent decision of the English High Court, AA v Persons Unknown,[1] has found that crypto assets such as Bitcoin are "property" and therefore capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction or freezing order.
Introduction
Members' voluntary winding up
Power to demand documents and interview individuals
Power to disclaim
Transactions at undervalue and exorbitant credit transactions
Distributions to creditors, early dissolution and creditor meetings
This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.
This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.
On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey is due to pass the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, making Guernsey an even more desirable forum for insolvency proceedings. The new legislation is set to modernise Guernsey insolvency law, bringing the jurisdiction into line with not only the UK but other offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.