The Court of Appeal (CICA) has provided further clarification and guidance to Cayman Islands insolvency professionals on issues ranging from voidable transactions, the scope of liquidators’ powers and legal professional privilege, following the publication this month of a number of decisions that had come before the Court during the November 2016 Court sitting. Set out below is a summary of the Court’s findings in 3 of the CICA decisions which may be relevant to your day to day practice.

Voidable Transactions

In this thoroughly new and groundbreaking case it was held that where a creditor has already filed a winding up petition in respect of a company: (1) not only may the directors of the company parry by themselves applying for the appointment of JPLs; but (2) they may do so even without a shareholder resolution or express provision to do so in the company’s articles of association.

Introduction

The last decade has exposed the bankruptcy courts across the globe to a large volume of international work, and with that experience in mind, the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) held its inaugural meeting in Singapore in late 2016. Its intent was to formulate a set of guidelines (theGuidelines) that would promote cooperation between Courts. Sitting alongside common law and legislative cross-border provisions, the Guidelines are a practical code to enhance some of the most successful cross-border initiatives of recent years.

In an era of increasing complexity in regulation globally, the BVI has carefully built a simple and clear regulatory framework that minimises the legal risk for lenders and financial markets participants dealing with BVI companies.

Legal

The BVI’s regulatory framework is structured to make the legal risk of lending or selling financial assets to a BVI entity lower than almost any other jurisdiction.

In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.

Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.

Il caso

Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato

Il caso

Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.

The Court of Pavia (14 October 2016) denies confirmation of a concordato preventivo plan and proposal approved by the creditors, based on the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner that the plan is clearly unsuitable to cure the debtor’s state of financial and economic distress

The case

The Court of Milan (29 September 2016) confirmed that the concordato preventivocan be terminated as a consequence of the mere fact that a “material” breach occurred, as provided by Art. 186 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law.

The case