In CHC Group Ltd ("CHC") the Cayman Islands Grand Court has determined that, in certain circumstances, directors of a company can commence Cayman Islands restructuring provisional liquidation proceedings ("RPL Proceedings") without the need for a shareholders' resolution or authorisation in the company's articles of association. This decision allows greater access by companies to the Cayman Islands restructuring regime by confirming a practical solution to the so-called Emmadart issue.

Key Points

• A trust can be created and enforceable in respect of assets sited in a jurisdiction that does not recognise the concept of a trust
• In circumstances where the owner of a beneficial right goes into liquidation, the transfer of legal rights held by a third party to a bonafide purchaser for value is not a disposition within the meaning of s127.

The Facts

The Grand Court has handed down an instructive judgment appointing "light-touch" provisional liquidators over Midway Resources International ("Midway"), a pan-African focused upstream oil and gas company, incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The judgment of Segal J will be of particular interest to companies considering the appointment of provisional liquidators intended to work alongside the board of directors to promote a restructuring plan, under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the "Act").

In the latest instalment in the ongoing litigation between Herald and Primeo,[1] the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has considered how liquidators of a Cayman fund may adjust the fund’s historic NAVs (and thereby alter the respective amounts to be distributed to the fund’s shareholders) in circumstances where those NAVs were misstated due to fraud or default and where calcu

Introduction

When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. The judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Simon Conway and David Walker (CICA 2 of 2016), delivered on 18 November 2016, clarifies aspects of the liquidators’ power to claw back certain types of redemption payments made shortly prior to liquidation.

In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.

When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. On the other hand, those investors who successfully redeemed shortly before the fund’s collapse might regard the liquidators’ efforts with a degree of concern. 

In this thoroughly new and groundbreaking case it was held that where a creditor has already filed a winding up petition in respect of a company: (1) not only may the directors of the company parry by themselves applying for the appointment of JPLs; but (2) they may do so even without a shareholder resolution or express provision to do so in the company’s articles of association.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.¹  Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000.  This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.