Although the global “credit crisis” phenomenon has been dominating the headlines for some time, the implications of it in Canada may just be beginning in the form of increased distressed M&A activity. The past decade of unprecedented growth and the abundance of liquidity has been replaced in the past few months by a more conservative lending environment. Around the country, bank loan officers are busy reviewing financial statements and covenant compliance certificates, and assessing loan renewals of corporate clientele.

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

A. The Restructuring Candidate

A statutory demand is a formal demand for payment of a debt made by a creditor to a debtor. It may be used as the basis for an application for a petition to wind up a Cayman company.

Service and content of Statutory Demand

The Companies Winding up Rules 2008 (as amended) provide guidance as to the form and content of a statutory demand as well as the mode of service within the Cayman Islands.

A statutory demand should be in the format of CWR Form 1 and must be signed by:

Should Lenders be Concerned?

In the United States, claims for “deepening insolvency” have been advanced against lenders and investment bankers to insolvent companies as well as against the officers and directors of insolvent companies. Experience suggests that developments in U.S. commercial laws tend to be imported north of the border.1 Accordingly, lenders should be aware of the existence of the theory of deepening insolvency and the risk of creditors attempting to use it in Canada.

What is Deepening Insolvency?

In the recent decision of Aurora Funds Management Limited et al -v- Torchlight GP Limited1 the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought in respect of an order made by McMillan J in the Grand Court validating certain payments made by Torchlight GP Limited (the "General Partner") in accordance with Section 99 of the Companies Law.

Background

In Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd v eHi Car Services Limited the Cayman Islands Court delivered a warning to shareholders seeking to use the winding up jurisdiction to advance their own individual commercial interests.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2019 government registration fees, an appointed liquidator will be required to hold the final general meeting for a company or file the final dissolution notice for an exempted limited partnership on or before 31 January 2019.

The Privy Council's recent judgment in Weavering^[1]upheld the decisions of the Cayman Islands Grand Court and Court of Appeal that payments made to redeemed investors immediately prior to the fund's liquidation were preference payments under section 145(1) of the Companies Law (2018 Revision) (Law), and must be repaid.

In a decision that does much to reassert legal certainty for investors in Cayman Islands funds the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal ("CICA") has overruled a decision of the Grand Court concerning the circumstances in which an official liquidator of a solvent company could rectify the register of members, in In the matter of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation).