This briefing first appeared in the June 2020 edition of South Square Digest.

Executive Summary

In February 2020 the British Virgin Islands Commercial Court (the "BVI Court") sanctioned a creditor scheme of arrangement, which was part of a much larger cross boarder restructuring. This scheme of arrangement, which as a creditor scheme was itself rare for the BVI, was preceded by the BVI's first ever "soft touch" provisional liquidation (in linked proceedings), which commenced in December 2018.

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has provided much needed clarification of the test for validating certain transactions by companies that are subject to a winding up petition, pursuant to section 99 of the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (the "Companies Law").

The Legal Issue of Principle

On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey is due to pass the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, making Guernsey an even more desirable forum for insolvency proceedings. The new legislation is set to modernise Guernsey insolvency law, bringing the jurisdiction into line with not only the UK but other offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

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.

1. Purpose

This client briefing has been prepared in order to assist directors of companies which have listed debt securities on The International Stock Exchange (TISE or theExchange) pursuant to the listing rules (the Listing Rules) of The International Stock Exchange Authority Limited (the Authority). The Listing Rules are available on TISE's website.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has provided further helpful guidance to insolvency practitioners as to the circumstances in which leave will be granted to commence or continue proceedings against a company in liquidation. Adenium Energy Capital Limited (in official liquidation) (Adenium) is the latest in a line of cases in the Cayman Islands in which leave has been sought to commence proceedings under s 97(1) of the Companies Act against a Cayman Islands-incorporated company in liquidation.

Introduction

Jersey entities have proved popular as vehicles for a wide variety of asset holding structures, such as those holding real property. The modern legal framework and tax neutral regime are attractive to professionals structuring transactions for their clients. As a consequence, lending institutions are frequently requested to put in place credit arrangements for Jersey entities. To protect its position in these circumstances, a lending institution needs to be aware of the material differences that exist between English law and Jersey law.

In the recent decision of Re Formation (Cayman) Fund I, L.P (unreported, 21 April 2022), Justice Kawaley held (notwithstanding the earlier decision of Justice Parker in Re Padma Fund L.P. (unreported, 8 October 2021) in respect of a creditor's petition) that a limited partner may petition to wind up an exempted limited partnership (ELP) on the just and equitable ground by presenting a petition against the ELP directly (rather than against the general partner), and that an ELP may be wound-up in the same manner as a company pursuant to Part V of the Compani

The Royal Court in Jersey has a varied and challenging workload. The cases that have come before it this quarter certainly live up to that description. Here we discuss just a handful of cases that the Royal Court has determined, that, whilst in some respects are unremarkable, in other respects serve to illustrate the breadth of the experience that the Royal Court judiciary possesses.

Representation of Private Equity Fund Finance Limited [2018] JRC 194

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has recently delivered helpful clarification on the principles which apply with respect to security for costs when the official liquidators of an insolvent fund seek to bring claims against its former management. Where it is clear to the Court that a defendant was responsible for management decisions immediately before a company entered insolvency, the Court may exercise its discretion, notwithstanding the impecuniosity of the plaintiff company, not to order payment of security for costs.