The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands recently confirmed expressly for the first time that it has jurisdiction to wind up a segregated portfolio company ("SPC") on the insolvency of one or more, but not all, of its segregated portfolios, and to appoint restructuring officers over those segregated portfolios. The judgment is In the matter of Holt Fund SPC

Background

Many will have waited for a bus only for two to come along at once. So it is in the Cayman Islands, with the ongoing saga as to whether a shareholder can make a claim for misrepresentation in a liquidation and, if so, where such a claim ranks in the order of priority. The rule in Houldsworth barring such claims has been in existence for over 140 years. However, two liquidations have, within weeks of each other, sought to overturn this longstanding rule.

In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.

Background

The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.

Many jurisdictions offer a process for distressed companies to seek the protection of the Courts from enforcement action while they try to put a restructuring plan in place.  England and Wales has the administration regime, and the USA has Chapter 11. Historically, the Cayman Islands has addressed this issue by means of the ‘light touch’ provisional liquidation, by which an insolvency practitioner could be appointed to supervise the company while a restructuring plan was formulated and considered, with a breathing space from creditor actions by way of a court-imposed moratorium.

Written by- Kyle Broadhurst, BROADHURST LLC

While the Cayman Court has not yet had the opportunity to rule on the matter, it is highly likely that cryptocurrencies will be treated as property of the company which the liquidators are empowered to collect and which is to be applied in satisfaction of the company’s liabilities.

As the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands reopens for 2024, we reflect on 2023 and some of the large-scale cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings, and complex commercial disputes dealt with in the jurisdiction over the past year.

Statistics from the Grand Court

There were approximately 1,579 filings made in the Grand Court, which can be broken down as follows:

Introduction

The first stage in any restructuring by way of a scheme of arrangement in the Cayman Islands involves meetings of such classes of creditors or shareholders (as the case may be) to consider, and if thought fit, approve the terms of the scheme. An application to Court is required for orders to be granted for convening such meetings. If, at these meetings, the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied, the second stage involves obtaining Court sanction for the proposed scheme to become effective.

This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Introduction

The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:

Mark Goodman, Katie Logan and Jordie Fienberg, Campbells

This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has provided further guidance on the new restructuring officer (RO) regime under section 91B of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act), which came into force on 31 August 2022.

In Re Aubit International (Unreported, 4 October 2023), the Grand Court dismissed a petition to appoint restructuring officers and found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested on the basis that there was no credible evidence of a rational restructuring proposal with reasonable prospects of success.