On 23 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon of the Court of First Instance in the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR granted recognition and assistance to Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) (“Mr Chan“) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan (“Ms Hanrahan“), the joint official liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (“Bull’s-Eye”) following a letter of request issued by the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.

With the rising popularity of alternative dispute resolution globally (including in insolvency related cases), it is important to take stock of where the Cayman Islands currently stands (as a leading jurisdiction in cross-border insolvency and restructuring) on the use of mediation in this context.

On 15 May 2024, the Bermuda Court granted an order striking out a winding-up petition (the “Petition”), setting aside an earlier order appointing joint provisional liquidators (“JPLs”), and discharging the JPLs appointed over New Sparkle Roll International Group Limited (the “Company”), a Bermuda company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The Company’s new board of directors (the “New Board”) was represented by Conyers.

Background

A warm welcome to the Summer edition of Conyers Coverage. The whirlwind that is the Cayman Islands (re)insurance industry continues to blow with gusto! To keep you updated on recent developments, we include various items from our Insurance, Regulatory and Litigation teams, we ponder the possibilities and implications for the Cayman Islands in potentially securing Qualified Jurisdiction status with the NAIC and lots more beyond. We think there’s something for everyone in our latest edition so please dig in.

To NAIC or Not to NAIC?

On August 31, 2022, significant amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (“Act”) took effect to revamp the Cayman Islands restructuring regime. These amendments introduced the new role of a court-appointed “Restructuring Officer” and a dedicated “Restructuring Petition.” The Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime (“RO Regime”) shares certain features with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure in the US and Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

File your proof of claim before the bar date. That’s a principle every creditor in a bankruptcy case should adhere by. But on June 7, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may have increased the degree of diligence parties need to conduct to determine whether they are a potential creditor in a case and therefore required to file a proof of claim.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases). The decision in Harrington v.