The recent judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal ("CICA") in Asia Pacific Limited v ARC Capital LLC¹ explains the approach that the Court will take when considering an application to strike-out a contributory's just and equitable winding up petition which is based on an offer to purchase the petitioner's shares at fair value. 

The Court of Chancery issues a liberal ruling on creditor derivative standing and more obsequies for the “zone of insolvency.” 

The Companies Act 2014 (the "Act") was recently passed by the Irish parliament and is expected to be brought into force on 1 June 2015 (the "Commencement Date").  The Act is largely a consolidation and modernisation exercise. 

However, there are a number of significant areas which modify existing companies legislation and which lenders will need to consider both in the run-up to the Commencement Date and afterwards.  In particular these relate to:

The Court of Appeal has recently clarified that if a foreign company, being a shareholder of a Cayman Islands company, issues a winding up petition against that company and there is evidence that the petitioning company will be unable to pay an adverse costs order if the respondent is successful at trial, then the Cayman Islands court has an inherent jurisdiction to order the petitioning foreign company to provide security for the respondent's costs – Re Dyxnet Holdings¹.

In Lewis Holdings Limited & Others v.

Last week, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited (in Liquidation) (the "Fund") v Stefan Peterson and Hans Ekstrom (the "Directors").  The appeal from the first instance decision was allowed and the Grand Court's order of 26 August 2011 was set aside.  

It is trite to observe that issues related to the insolvency of a company are not arbitrable. However, the generality of this broad proposition can be misleading. In this the first of two articles on the arbitrability of claims, we look at how a court may approach a winding up petition in the face of a claim that the purported debt on which the petition is based relates to a dispute that is to be arbitrated.

On 26 November 2014 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the "Privy Council") handed down its judgment in the appeal brought by Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds ("Shell") against the joint liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Ltd ("Fairfield Sentry") (the "Liquidators"), the largest feeder fund to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").¹ 

On 10 November 2014, the Privy Council handed down its decision in Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers¹, together with its decision in a related case, PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited², both on appeal from the Court of Appeal in Bermuda. The decision provides guidance on the application of the principle of modified universalism.

The court provides guidance on liability if a subsidiary goes bankrupt because of the misconduct and careless management of its parent company.

Over the last few years, employees have increasingly sought to hold the parent companies of their employers liable for the subsidiaries’ actions by trying to demonstrate that the parent entity is the employee’s co-employer, i.e., that the employee has two employers: the company that hired him or her and its parent company.

To demonstrate this co-employment situation, the employee must prove either that