Later in the year amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (the "Companies Act") will be introduced to commence a new restructuring officer regime available to companies in financial difficulty. Under the new regime, it will be possible to petition the Cayman Court to appoint "restructuring officers" and, from the time of filing, for the company to take the benefit of an automatic moratorium (i.e. akin to a US Chapter 11 stay or English administration moratorium).

A fundamental principle of insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is that upon the commencement of a liquidation of a company, a line is drawn in the sand and the assets of an insolvent company should be distributed on a pari passu basis (e.g. each unsecured creditor should share equally in the available assets of the company). While subject to some exceptions (like any good fundamental principle of law), the concept that all unsecured creditors should be on “equal footing” is the basis for a wide array of insolvency legislation and case law.

In the recent judgment In the Matter of GTI Holdings Limited delivered on 15 March 20221 , the Cayman Islands Grand Court reiterated the importance of principles of comity in cross-border insolvency matters and the central function of the place of incorporation.

A copy of the full judgment is available here. 

Background

Conyers were instructed by Silver Base Group Holdings Limited (“Silver Base”) in relation to a successful application for the appointment of “light-touch” provisional liquidators for restructuring purposes before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.

Introduction

In the recent judgment of In the Matter of Margara Shipping Limited (the “Margara Decision”)1 the Cayman Islands Grand Court provided some useful guidance on the basis on which a company can be restored to the Register of Companies (the “Register”) and subsequently wound up pursuant to section 159 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the “Companies Act”) and the Grand Court Rules (2022 Consolidation) (“GCR”), Order 102, Rule 18.

The Legal Basis to Restore and Wind Up A Company

In the recent decision of Evergreen International Holdings Limited, delivered on 11 January 2022, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made an order for the immediate winding up of a company notwithstanding the company’s cross-applications for an adjournment of the winding up petition and the appointment of “light-touch” provisional liquidators for restructuring purposes. The Court dismissed the company’s cross-applications on the basis that there was no credible evidence which supported the company’s assertion that a viable restructuring was imminent. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the “no fair ground of doubt” standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Taggart v. Lorenzen, a case involving alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings for violation of a confirmed reorganization plan under Chapter 11.

In its top consumer credit law decisions of 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that settlement of an FDCPA claim does not trigger an attorney fee award, examined third-party contact as a “communication” under the FDCPA, and ruled there was no “partial surrender” of collateral in a Chapter 13 plan.

Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 993 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2021)

When 2020 ended, many of us were unsure what 2021 would look like from a bankruptcy perspective. Would consumer filings increase? Could we see bankruptcy reform and particularly in the area of discharge of student loans? There was a lot to consider throughout the year. This article will provide some insight as to what we saw and where we may be headed in 2022.

Bankruptcy Filings Down in 2021

Bankruptcy filings through the first 11 months of 2021 were at their lowest levels since the 1980’s.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several actions by a borrower against a mortgagee, and in so ruling also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s remand order, and that the borrower had waived his right to challenge an award of attorney fees and costs in connection with the remand.