Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?
The recent Grand Court decision of Ltd. (Unreported, 19 June 2024, Kawaley J) has reiterated and further clarified the principles to be applied to the remuneration of court-appointed receivers. Given the limited Cayman case law on the topic, the decision provides useful guidance and certainty to Receivers, and to those advising them.
What is a court-appointed 'Receiver', and what is 'remuneration'?
The Privy Council endorsed the Commercial Court's approach in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in staying insolvency proceedings, even when faced with a pre-existing arbitration agreement, only when a debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.
Introduction
FinReg Update [Jurisdiction] 2024 Regulatory Update Cayman – Q3 2024 Quick Fire Updates mourant.com 1. CRS reporting reminders The Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) issued an Updates Bulletin in June 2024 reminding Cayman Islands financial Institutions (FIs) of the following common reporting standard (CRS) annual reporting obligations: CRS Filing Declaration – required by all FIs with a CRS reporting obligation (deadline 31 July 2024) • FIs must make a CRS return to the DITC for each Reportable Account maintained during the reporting period.
On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.
Following the recent conflicting decisions in HQP Corporation (in official liquidation)1(HQP) and Direct Lending Income Feeder Fund, Ltd (in official liquidation)2 (DLI), Simon Dickson and Laura Stone of Mourant Ozannes (Cayman) LLP consider whether shareholder misrepresentation claims can be admitted in a Cayman Islands liquidation.
Hector Robinson KC
Partner | Cayman Islands
Justine Lau
Partner | Hong Kong
Nicholas Fox
Partner | Cayman Islands
Peter Hayden
Partner | Cayman Islands
Simon Dickson
Partner | Cayman Islands
Guide
This guide examines what a creditor needs to know about liquidating an insolvent Cayman company under the Cayman Companies Act (2020 Revision) and the Companies Winding Up Rules, 2018.
Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.