Attached is the April 2022 publication of our Technical Brief for Investment Funds, a newsletter developed by the Loeb Smith Cayman Islands Investment Funds Technical Team. This Technical Brief covers, among other thing, a number of recent Cayman case law authorities which will have an impact on the practical application of Cayman Islands' law:

1 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

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.

Defendants to a proceeding related to a breach of an Asset Sale Agreement, successfully joined directors to the action by way of a third party notice, seeking damages for liability incurred where those directors had breached their directors obligations to discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).

In the matter of Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, the Court held that Griffin Coal Mining Company (Griffin) was insolvent, without having to prove so under the section 95A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). This was in accordance with a contractual provision where it provided specific circumstances where insolvency could be proven and as such a breach had occurred and the contract could be terminated.

A Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteményében közzétett Gfv.VII.30.365/2020/5. számú határozatában a Kúria arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az adós és a hitelező közötti szerződés felszámoló általi, Cstv. 47. § (1) bekezdés szerinti felmondása nem jogellenes, ebből következően az adóssal szemben a szerződés alapján a felmondás tényére tekintettel kártérítési igény nem érvényesíthető. A kártérítési felelősség megállapítására ugyanis jogellenes magatartás hiányában nem kerülhet sor.

The recent English High Court decision of Re Glam and Tan Ltd [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) highlights the ways in which a director can be found liable, as well as the reasons why they may be relieved of responsibility for breaches of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which penalises delinquent directors and officers.

The legislation

The common law imposes on all company officers (directors and secretaries), fiduciary duties and a duty of skill, care and diligence. The Companies Act 1981 (the "Act") codifies certain of the common law duties (but is not exhaustive), such that officers' duties are governed by both common law and statute.

On 21 April 2022, the federal Chamber of Representatives adopted the Private Members’ Bill inserting Book 1 on “General provisions” of the Civil Code (Wetsvoorstel houdende Boek 1 “Algemene bepalingen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek / Proposition de loi portant le Livre 1er “Dispositions générales” du Code civil – the Book on General Provisions) and that inserting Book 5 “Obligations” of the Civil Code (Wetsvoorstel houndende Boek 5 “Verbintenissen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek / Proposition de loi portant le Livre 5 “Les obligations” du Code civil – the Book on Obligations) (for a summary of bot

It has almost been 12 months since the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 came into force on 30 April 2021. The regulations require an administrator to obtain creditor approval or a report from an independent evaluator in advance of completing a “substantial disposal” of the company’s property to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.