This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary and compulsory winding up under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover striking off companies or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.
The mechanics of a voluntary winding up
1 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS GUERNSEY JERSEY CAPE TOWN HONG KONG LONDON SINGAPORE WWW.CAREYOLSEN.COM FEBRUARY 2017 INVESTMENT FUNDS & INSURANCE CELL COMPANIES IN GUERNSEY 2 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey INTRODUCTION This note summarises Guernsey law relating to protected and incorporated cell companies. For more detailed information on protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies please see the separate briefing notes on each.
This briefing note describes the key features of the incorporated cell company (“ICC”) and summarises the formation, structure and liquidation procedures particular to this type of company.
Key features
The BVI Commercial Court (the Honourable Justice Davis-White QC [Ag]) has recently ordered the appointment of liquidators over Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Limited, Parkmond Group Limited, and PARD Trade Limited (the “Companies”), three BVI incorporated companies forming a key part of the China Fishery Group.
The applications were unsuccessfully contested on the principal ground that the appointment of liquidators would irretrievably damage the prospects of a wider, global restructuring of the Pacific Andes Group.
This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary winding up and striking off under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover compulsory winding up or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.
Voluntary Winding Up
Just about every year changes are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The revisions address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.
In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.
When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. On the other hand, those investors who successfully redeemed shortly before the fund’s collapse might regard the liquidators’ efforts with a degree of concern.
The In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case in New Hampshire has produced yet another important decision involving trademarks and Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. This time the decision is from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”). Although the BAP’s Section 365(n) discussion is interesting, even more significant is its holding on the impact of rejection of a trademark license.
When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. The judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Simon Conway and David Walker (CICA 2 of 2016), delivered on 18 November 2016, clarifies aspects of the liquidators’ power to claw back certain types of redemption payments made shortly prior to liquidation.