As year end approaches, it is time to start planning the liquidation of Cayman Islands entities that have reached the end of their life cycle to ensure that unnecessary fees are not incurred.

On 4 June 2015 the Cayman Islands Grand Court ruled in favour of Primeo Fund (Primeo), in the ongoing Representative Proceedings between Primeo and Herald Fund SPC (Herald). The Court had to construe section 37(7)(a) of the Companies Law. Although the Court's detailed reasons are still awaited, it is clear from the Court's decision that section 37(7)(a) does not apply to redeeming investors whose shares have been redeemed prior to the commencement of the liquidation.

The full strength of the economic headwinds facing the UK economy is not yet clear, but a helpful recent report by insolvency and restructuring adviser Begbies Traynor provided some useful numbers around the attitudes of businesses.

Global Perspectives on Insolvency, Restructuring & Dispute Resolution 

As primarily offshore lawyers, we speak on a daily basis with onshore counsel, banks, asset managers, trustees, corporates, insolvency practitioners and individuals around the world. Those conversations give our Global Insolvency & Dispute Resolution Practice Group a unique perspective on the different market trends and their regional impact in 2022.

In a recent decision,¹ the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered the approach the Court will take when reviewing official liquidators' fees, the extent to which the Wednesbury reasonableness test is relevant and the need to file sufficient evidence in advance of the fee approval application hearing.

This article considers the range of vehicles available in the Cayman Islands for alternative investment fund ("AIF") structures designed for financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, family offices and (U)HNWs (as opposed to retail investors), as well as the legal and regulatory considerations that may influence the structure of an AIF. A summary of the key similarities and differences between the regulation of closed-ended and open-ended AIFs in the Cayman Islands is also considered.

Cayman Islands AIF Vehicles

Voluntary liquidations generally

As the conclusion of 2019 approaches, clients should give some thought to whether or not they have Cayman entities which they are no longer using and wish to liquidate prior to the end of 2019 in order to, among other things, avoid annual government registration fees due in January 2020. A voluntary liquidator of a Cayman company or exempted limited partnership (ELP) is required to hold the final general meeting for that company or file the final dissolution notice for that ELP on or before 31 January 2020.

In certain circumstances the official liquidator of a Cayman company may be able to take action to recover assets which have been transferred in the run up to the company's insolvency. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a Cayman company in the twilight of insolvency to be aware of the statutory powers available to the official liquidator and the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands.

Voidable preferences

The Grand Court has handed down an instructive judgment appointing "light-touch" provisional liquidators over Midway Resources International ("Midway"), a pan-African focused upstream oil and gas company, incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The judgment of Segal J will be of particular interest to companies considering the appointment of provisional liquidators intended to work alongside the board of directors to promote a restructuring plan, under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the "Act").

The Court of Appeal has recently clarified that if a foreign company, being a shareholder of a Cayman Islands company, issues a winding up petition against that company and there is evidence that the petitioning company will be unable to pay an adverse costs order if the respondent is successful at trial, then the Cayman Islands court has an inherent jurisdiction to order the petitioning foreign company to provide security for the respondent's costs – Re Dyxnet Holdings¹.