在当前的经济条件下，在开曼群岛（“开曼”）或英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）注册成立的离岸公司（包括作为投资基金开展业务的公司）的股东越来越多地被迫考虑，在董事对公司事务管理不善负有责任时，其对该等董事所享有的权利。尤其是，小股东特别希望了解是否有救济措施，使其能够克服“违法者控制”的局面。换言之，通常董事会的组成和管理是由大股东控制的。在本篇文章中，我们简要介绍了在开曼和BVI两个司法管辖区，董事所承担的职责以及股东可获得的救济措施。

董事职责的范围是什么？

开曼群岛

开曼公司董事的职责规定在普通法中，包括：(i)以公司的最佳利益善意行事的职责；(ii)为适当目的行使其权力的职责（而不得为未授权的目的行使其权力）；以及(iii)不得牟取秘密利润的职责。

英属维尔京群岛

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.

1.All eyes on redemption right

Redemption rights have increasingly been under the spotlight in the past year, as more and more investors contemplate an exit from under-performing investments.

As the redemption of shares involves a return of capital, it is prohibited under Cayman Islands law except to the extent permitted by statute. Section 37 of the Cayman Islands’ Companies Act (the Act) provides:

Key takeaways

Do you have any Cayman Islands entities that you are considering terminating prior to year-end?

In this briefing, Ogier Global's Corinne Cellier, associate director and head of our solvent liquidations team, reminds us of the options and timing for the termination of Cayman Islands entities. Our aim is to make the process as straightforward and clear as possible for our clients, navigating the applicable deadlines and regulatory considerations.

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?

In many of the recent insolvencies of digital asset companies, liquidators have been appointed over companies in which digital assets have been fraudulently transferred from wallets controlled by an insolvent company into other unidentified wallets in foreign jurisdictions.

The anonymity of cryptoassets causes serious difficulties for insolvency practitioners in identifying the third parties who received funds and the location of the digital wallets.

The recent English High Court decision of Wright v Chappell related to the collapse of British Home Stores provides a landmark ruling of which directors of Cayman Islands companies need to be aware. This is the first time damages have been awarded against directors for 'misfeasant trading'. Directors may be held liable for any 'insolvency deepening' activity in failing to file for insolvency when it would be in the creditors' interests to do so.

Introduction

In an announcement to beneficiaries on 24 March 2024[1], the joint administrative receivers (JARs) of Sigma Finance Corporation (the Company), once thought to be “insolvency proof”