Conyers partner Jonathon Milne and associate Rowana-Kay Campbell in the Cayman Islands, and partner Anna Lin in Hong Kong, explain why the new Cayman restructuring regime is likely to be a welcome addition to the legislative landscape for prudent directors – particularly in light of current macro-economic conditions and the difficulties many companies are facing.
A much-anticipated corporate restructuring regime will be enacted in the Cayman Islands later this year through amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act.
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.
Overview
In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Court”) concerning a supervision order in respect of a Cayman company in voluntary liquidation, Kawaley J considered the settled principles in a solvent Cayman Islands liquidation involving a dispute as to the identity of the official liquidators to be appointed.
The Proceeding
Later in the year amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (the "Companies Act") will be introduced to commence a new restructuring officer regime available to companies in financial difficulty. Under the new regime, it will be possible to petition the Cayman Court to appoint "restructuring officers" and, from the time of filing, for the company to take the benefit of an automatic moratorium (i.e. akin to a US Chapter 11 stay or English administration moratorium).
Introduction
In the recent judgment of In the Matter of Margara Shipping Limited (the “Margara Decision”)1 the Cayman Islands Grand Court provided some useful guidance on the basis on which a company can be restored to the Register of Companies (the “Register”) and subsequently wound up pursuant to section 159 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the “Companies Act”) and the Grand Court Rules (2022 Consolidation) (“GCR”), Order 102, Rule 18.
The Legal Basis to Restore and Wind Up A Company
The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Overview of this submission
Background
Under Dutch law, the directors of a (private) company can be held personally liable by the trustee for the bankruptcy deficit. Liability can arise when the directors have manifestly performed their management duties improperly and if it is reasonable to assume that bankruptcy was declared as a result. Section 2:248(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) contains a list of grounds for reducing the amount of the directors’ liability.
Decision
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background