Executive Summary 

Where multiple Cayman Islands entities in the same corporate structure become subject to insolvency proceedings (e.g. Cayman Islands master/ feeder fund structures), the Cayman Islands Courts will typically seek to appoint the same liquidators at each level where such entities share similarities in circumstances. Doing so typically aligns with the Overriding Objective of the Court to deal with matters economically and efficiently, and in the context of a liquidation, helps protect the interests of stakeholders in the liquidation. 

Legislative reforms to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act will shortly be coming into force which will, amongst other things, introduce a new restructuring officer regime available to certain debtors in financial distress.

Global Perspectives on Insolvency, Restructuring & Dispute Resolution 

As primarily offshore lawyers, we speak on a daily basis with onshore counsel, banks, asset managers, trustees, corporates, insolvency practitioners and individuals around the world. Those conversations give our Global Insolvency & Dispute Resolution Practice Group a unique perspective on the different market trends and their regional impact in 2022.

When a Cayman Islands company is in official liquidation, no proceedings or claims can be commenced against the company without the Cayman Court's permission. This requirement serves as a safeguard for the liquidation estate of the company in liquidation from being unnecessarily depleted at the expense of stakeholders of the liquidation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the viability of allowing a company to enter a second voluntary administration after going into liquidation following a failed DOCA. The Court considered that rather than maintain a state of liquidation, the secondary voluntary administration process would better serve the best interests of creditors and optimise the efficiency of the restructuring process. The decision serves as a useful guide to the considerations and orders appropriate for successfully arguing a company out of liquidation.

Background

Family law processes cannot be used to defraud creditors. In Re ZH International Pty Ltd (in liq), the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that transfers of property from a company to the directors and shareholders of that company as part of family law proceedings were voidable transactions under section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) where the company was not a party to the orders and the orders did not require the company to make the transfers.

Background

Public examination can be a useful tool for parties in a liquidation to obtain information about matters relating to a company’s affairs. In the matter of Jewel of India Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 141 963 813 (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 356, the Court considered whether summonses for public examination, that were issued by the former owner of the business to the liquidators and former administrators of Jewel Holdings, constituted an abuse of process.

On 26 April 2022, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a decision by the joint official liquidators (“JOLs”) of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the “Company”) to return (or procure the return of) certain payments held by or on behalf of the Company referable to one of its segregated portfolios, Premier Assurance Segregated Portfolio (“PASP”), to the respective payors on the basis that such sums were paid by mistake.

We have recently experienced an increase in mandates concerning disputes between shareholders and the Board of a Cayman company, which in many cases, leads to a shareholder applying to appoint provisional liquidators over the Company on a just and equitable basis. Therefore, we considered it important to remind those considering this remedy of the evidentiary hurdles they need to overcome to exercise it successfully.

In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background