Imagine operating a company, only to find without any warning that the company’s bank accounts have been blocked. The immediate consequence is one of acute disruption and uncertainty. You learn that a winding-up petition has been filed against the company, triggering restrictions that effectively prevent it from carrying out ordinary financial transactions. At that point, a pressing question arises: how is the business expected to continue operating under such constraints?
In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [2026] CIGC (FSD) 7, the Cayman Islands Grand Court has provided further guidance on the interplay between arbitration and winding up proceedings.
In this case, the Court appointed provisional liquidators to protect company assets pending the outcome of foreign arbitration proceedings, despite having stayed the winding up petition. The decision shows that arbitration and insolvency proceedings can operate as complementary parts of the overall dispute-resolution process.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Court or New York Court) has denied Xinyuan Real Estate Company Ltd. (Xinyuan or Debtor)’s motion to dismiss an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against it by a group of noteholders.
The ruling, made on March 3, 2026, has implications for the interplay between United States bankruptcy proceedings and foreign schemes of arrangement, particularly when the foreign scheme is at an impasse.
Below, we discuss the background of the decision and its practical implications for foreign companies.
La présente Newsletter de Monfrini Bitton Klein vise à offrir, de manière hebdomadaire, un tour d’horizon de la jurisprudence rendue par le Tribunal fédéral dans les principaux domaines d’activité de l’Etude, soit le droit pénal économique et le recouvrement d’actifs (asset recovery).
With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground.
In what was deemed an “unprecedented” application, the High Court recently refused to confirm the appointment of an interim examiner to a special purpose vehicle incorporated to develop commercial property. The Court determined that the company was not the “type of company for which examinership was designed”. The decision highlights some of the factors that the Court will consider when exercising its discretion to confirm the appointment of an examiner.