Alternative A of the Cape Town Convention [1] now has the force of law in Ireland, following signing of an Order by the Irish Government on 10 May 2017.
The Cape Town Convention was designed to establish a uniform set of rules to provide greater certainty and predictability around the protection, prioritisation and enforcement of rights in aircraft and aircraft engines. The Convention has a commercial objective, namely to facilitate efficient forms of asset-based financing.
Alternative A
In CHC Group Ltd ("CHC") the Cayman Islands Grand Court has determined that, in certain circumstances, directors of a company can commence Cayman Islands restructuring provisional liquidation proceedings ("RPL Proceedings") without the need for a shareholders' resolution or authorisation in the company's articles of association. This decision allows greater access by companies to the Cayman Islands restructuring regime by confirming a practical solution to the so-called Emmadart issue.
As year end approaches, it is time to start planning the liquidation of Cayman Islands entities that have reached the end of their life cycle to ensure that unnecessary fees are not incurred.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.1 Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000. This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.
At this stage of Ireland's economic cycle, in many cases obtaining a court judgment against a debtor does not necessarily ensure payment. If the judgment debtor fails to pay, there are several procedures available to a judgment creditor to attach the judgment debtor's assets and income so as to obtain payment (a process broadly termed 'execution'). In order to make such an application, the judgment creditor must of course have some knowledge of and information about the particular asset or income.
As we approach the end of 2015, now is the time to start planning the liquidation of Cayman Islands entities that have reached the end of their life cycle to ensure that unnecessary 2016 fees are not incurred.
A recent decision of the Grand Court, Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) v Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation)1, is another win for investor certainty in the Cayman Islands. In previous updates, we have written about Cayman Islands and BVI decisions which illustrate the various challenges associated with bringing clawback actions in the Cayman Islands against innocent arm's length mutual fund investors who have validly redeemed their shares.2 That message has been further reinforced, on different grounds, by Jones J in P
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 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.