A secured creditor with a hypothec (charge) over a specific immovable property can enforce against that property without having to put the debtor through a full-blown bankruptcy process. That was one of the key outcomes of the Royal Court's decision in Representation of Prospect Holdings Limited[2025] JRC 164.

What happened?

Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary winding up and striking off under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”).

Voluntary winding up

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)

The Cayman Islands team obtained what may be the first instance of a permanent stay of an official liquidation of a Cayman Islands company.

Few would disagree that when a company is placed in official liquidation, that is the penultimate step before the company's death. Official liquidators will realise the company's assets and distribute them to stakeholders, before the company's eventual, but inevitable dissolution.

But does official liquidation have to be the end of the company? Can anything be done to halt the march towards dissolution?

1. Montague Goldsmith AG v Goswick Holdings Limited and Ors [2024] JRC 170

What happened?

A recent chambers decision holding that gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested off in a reverse vesting order (“RVO”) is on its way up to the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”). The ABCA has granted leave to appeal Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“Invico”).

The Chambers Decision

In the Endoceutics case[1], the Superior Court recently clarified the application of section 32 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Just over a year ago, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ACKB”) decision in Qualex-Landmark Towers v 12-10 Capital Corp (“Qualex”)[1] extended the application of an environmental regulator’s priority entitlements in bankruptcy and insolvency to civ

Recent teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada court in Canada v Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] had confirmed that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (‘CCAA’) courts could grant super-priority charges (e.g. interim financing, administration charge, or directors’ and officers’ charges) ranking in priority to s.