When a plaintiff obtains judgment against an insured but insolvent defendant in the Cayman Islands is the plaintiff entitled to the policy proceeds or do they have to be paid to the liquidator for the benefit of the defendant's creditors? The answer is yes when the claim involves a vehicle but is less clear in other cases. This article considers the arguments for and against a plaintiff being entitled to the policy proceeds in cases that do not involve a vehicle.

Background

From 1 October 2021, the temporary restrictions in Schedule 10 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) are being replaced[1].

These changes lift the current restrictions on issuing winding up petitions, and replaces them with less stringent and more refined restrictions which are due to remain in place until 31 March 2022.

As the public may be aware, there are ways to put a company into liquidation, one of which is what is called “soft-touch” liquidation. The definition of the soft-touch liquidation was set out in a British Virgin Islands judgment — Re Constellation Overseas Ltd BVIHC (Com) 2018/0206, 0207, 0208, 0210 & 0212. It was held that the essence of a soft-touch provisional liquidation is that a company remains under the day- to-day control of the directors but is protected against actions by individual creditors.

High Court sanctions scheme of arrangement proposed by the Provident Finance group

In our earlier blog, we considered the application to strike out the challenge against the Caffè Nero company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) (Nero Holdings Ltd v Young) and the rejection of Caffè Nero’s strike-out action by the Court.

Background

The High Court has today given judgment in the insolvency case of Young v Nero Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 2600 (Ch), determining that the company voluntary arrangement ("CVA") which was on the brink of approval by creditors was not capable of challenge by an aggrieved (yet well supported) landlord, Ronald Young.

As we move closer to a global recession caused by the current pandemic, some companies will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to seek bankruptcy relief. This may have some important and often overlooked privacy implications. There is no question that in this day and age, one of a business’ most valuable assets is the personal information that it has collected from its customers and/or end-users – often more so than any of its tangible assets.

In Her Majesty the Queen v. Canada North Group Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) held that lower courts can permit the grant of court ordered charges under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (the CCAA), including the interim lender’s charge, in priority to the Minister of National Revenue’s (the Minister) statutory deemed trust claims under the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985 c 1 (the ITA).

The High Court has dismissed an application by a landlord creditor to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) implemented by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. The CVA, previously approved by its creditors, compromised rent arrears and reduced future rents for the company's premises. The decision follows a series of previous high-profile challenges to retail and leisure CVAs.