The timing of the commencement of the voluntary liquidation of a Cayman Islands company was often driven primarily by the desire to avoid incurring the following year’s annual government fees. To avoid those fees, the liquidation had to commence by December, with the final meeting being held before the end of January. This timetable allowed for an effective dissolution date into the next calendar year, while still avoiding the government fees for that year.

The Irish High Court has recently ruled on the test for determining whether the transfer of a debt is a "true sale" or is by way of a charge. It has, helpfully, adopted the well-established test taken in a long line of English cases which emphasises that the legal form of the contract adopted by the parties will determine its nature, provided the contract is not a "sham".

From 26 June 2017 an enhanced EU regime governing the commencement, recognition and enforcement of insolvency and restructuring proceedings throughout the EU will come into effect. The principal aim of the new regime is to encourage a corporate rescue culture within the EU.

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