First published in The Lawyer on July 18, 2011

Western economies, many With recoveries stalling in investors and creditors are ­considering carefully which jurisdictions will govern their interests in the event of insolvency and what, if anything, can be done to influence the process.

Many investment funds and other vehicles, attracted by tax-neutrality and stability, are incorporated in jurisdictions such as the ­Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, but with their managers, operations, assets and investors often dispersed globally.

In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.

Background

Introduction

If a fund is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities. An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the fund into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the fund’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries. Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.  

Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr. Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

With more than three lakh confirmed cases and 14 thousand deaths across 190 countries, the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has caused (and continues to cause) unprecedented disruptions in the global political, social and economic environment. India has not remained untouched from this. With almost 500 confirmed cases and the country in lock-down mode to prevent further outbreak, social and economic activities have come to a grinding halt.

The Central Bank of Ireland ("CBI") issued a letter to all fund management companies on 7 August 2019 ("Letter") with a timely reminder of their ongoing obligations regarding liquidity management and compliance with legislative and regulatory obligations for UCITS and AIFs. This is in the context of the CBI's continuing engagement with industry on Brexit preparedness, and it stated it will have regard to the Letter as part of its future supervisory engagements.

In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014).  The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.

Background

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

Overview

In the recent High Court decision of McInerney Homes Limited, the court has ruled for the first time that proposals for a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) entailing payment to a secured creditor of a written down sum in full satisfaction of its debt, could be approved. However, on the facts of the case the court held that the objecting secured creditors would be unfairly prejudiced if they were required to accept the sum proposed to be paid, and, accordingly, refused to approve the Scheme.

Art. 57 para. 6-bis TUF (introduced by Legislative Decree No. 42/2012) provides for a special procedure of judicial liquidation of investment funds in an insolvency situation, where debts cannot be satisfied in full out of the fund’s assets, but does not state whether investment funds are eligible for concordato preventivo as an alternative to liquidation.

The issues