Dispute Resolution analysis: In a judgment which brings to a conclusion the trial of the former BHS directors, the Court has held the directors joint and severally liable for the increase in net deficiency of the company arising out of breaches of duty which caused the company to continue trading.

Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Limited [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

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.

Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 178

In what could be seen as a wake-up call, the High Court of Singapore clarified the scope of director’s duties in Singapore, emphasizing the minimum standard of care required.

Background

A warm welcome to the Summer edition of Conyers Coverage. The whirlwind that is the Cayman Islands (re)insurance industry continues to blow with gusto! To keep you updated on recent developments, we include various items from our Insurance, Regulatory and Litigation teams, we ponder the possibilities and implications for the Cayman Islands in potentially securing Qualified Jurisdiction status with the NAIC and lots more beyond. We think there’s something for everyone in our latest edition so please dig in.

To NAIC or Not to NAIC?

The £150 million judgment makes clear the full impact of the trading misfeasance offence for directors.

Dissolution is the process of de-registering a company from the company registry at the Department of Business Development (“DBD”). When considering the life cycle of a business operation, the voluntary dissolution by the shareholders appears to be the usual way to end the company’s operations. There are several circumstances that will lead companies to the dissolution and subsequently, the liquidation process. Under Sections 1236 and 1237 of the CCC, a limited company may be dissolved by the following causes:

Business rescue regime in South African law, was established in the Companies Act of 2008 to prevent the liquidation of financially distressed companies and to facilitate their restructuring and revival. Business rescue is not just a legal process, but a lifeline for struggling businesses. The primary goal of business rescue is to maximize the chances of a company's successful recovery while also considering and minimizing any potential harm to stakeholders, who are not just participants, but key contributors to the process.

Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。

この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法（Companies Act）第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。

監督命令に適用される審査基準

監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。

会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。

This year was set up for disappointment in restructuring activity, given high levels of Chapter 11 filings and debt defaults in 2023 — especially in 1H23 — as well as the resurgence of leverage credit issuance since late 2023 that has allowed many distressed companies to address near-term debt maturities or liquidity challenges without a formal restructuring event. Restructuring activity in 2024 is almost certain to come up short of last year’s high bar; the only question is by how much.

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