You can read the infographic version of our guide here.

Scheme of Arrangement (Section 86)

A Court approved compromise entered into between a company and its creditors or members or any classes of them. "Arrangement" is construed extremely broadly making a scheme a very flexible restructuring tool.

In Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd v eHi Car Services Limited the Cayman Islands Court delivered a warning to shareholders seeking to use the winding up jurisdiction to advance their own individual commercial interests.

The decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (‘the Cayman Court’) to grant common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong (‘the Hong Kong Court’) over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company – without parallel insolvency proceedings in Cayman – is likely to be welcomed widely by insolvency practitioners and lawyers involved in cross-border restructuring and insolvency in common law jurisdictions.

In this thoroughly new and groundbreaking case it was held that where a creditor has already filed a winding up petition in respect of a company: (1) not only may the directors of the company parry by themselves applying for the appointment of JPLs; but (2) they may do so even without a shareholder resolution or express provision to do so in the company’s articles of association.

The Court of Appeal (CICA) has provided further clarification and guidance to Cayman Islands insolvency professionals on issues ranging from voidable transactions, the scope of liquidators’ powers and legal professional privilege, following the publication this month of a number of decisions that had come before the Court during the November 2016 Court sitting. Set out below is a summary of the Court’s findings in 3 of the CICA decisions which may be relevant to your day to day practice.

Voidable Transactions

Voluntary liquidation or Strike-off? - Alternatives to voluntarily achieving the conclusion of operations and dissolution of Cayman companies

The Court interpreted the terms of a Termination Agreement and found that the Applicant, Europa, was entitled to €1.3 million from the Defendant, AII, in relation to funds invested on Europa's behalf, which had been paid out and held by AII. As a matter of construction, it could not have been intended that AII should be left with sums owing to an investor following a Termination Agreement.

Why segregated portfolio companies are thriving in Cayman? Loeb Smith’s corporate Partner Gary Smith talks to HFM Week about SPCs.

HFMWeek (HFM):How versatile are SPCs? What makes them this way?

The Exempted Limited Partnership (Amendment) Law, 2009, which was enacted in March 2009 and is expected to come into effect before the end of April 2009, has made significant changes to the regime for the winding up and dissolution of exempted limited partnerships (“Partnerships”). The opportunity has also been taken to clarify certain other provisions of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2007 Revision) (“ELP Law”).  

Winding Up and Dissolution  

In recent years, with the large increase in the number of enterprise bankruptcy cases, the instances of the legal representative or directors, supervisors and/or senior executives of a bankrupt enterprise (collectively, “senior officers”) being sued by the administrator or creditors have become common. In light of such laws as the Company Law, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, etc., and typical cases in judicial practice, such senior officers chiefly face the following risks: