In a decision that will reassure investors in Cayman Islands investment funds and other vehicles, the Grand Court has shown its willingness to facilitate the investigation of legitimate concerns raised during a voluntary liquidation.1

The decision is the first written ruling on the Court's power to defer the dissolution of a Cayman Islands company in voluntary liquidation under section 151(3) of the Companies Law and also considers the Court's power to bring a voluntary liquidation under the Court's supervision in the context of an investigation into possible wrongdoing.

In a landmark post-Rubin v Eurofinance[1] ruling, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has granted common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company.

The bankruptcy court in In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 17-10736 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017) determined that a decision by an offshore drilling company from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to shift its Center of Main Interest (COMI) to the Cayman Islands prior to defaulting on bonds and initiating reorganization proceedings there and in the U.S., was “prudent.” The Court held that the change offered the debtors the best opportunity for successful restructuring and survival under difficult financial conditions and did not preclude U.S.

In a landmark judgment of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands delivered on 23 August 2017 in Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) (“Primeo”) v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd (“BBCL”) and HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) S.A (“HSSL”),[1] Mr Justice Jones QC dismissed the claim brought by Primeo, a Madoff feeder fund, against its custodian and administra

In Ocean Rig [1], the Grand Court sanctioned four inter-related schemes of arrangement (the “Schemes”), as part of a group restructuring of over US$3.69 billion of New York law governed debt – in value terms, the largest judicially approved restructuring in the Cayman Islands.

The decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (‘the Cayman Court’) to grant common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong (‘the Hong Kong Court’) over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company – without parallel insolvency proceedings in Cayman – is likely to be welcomed widely by insolvency practitioners and lawyers involved in cross-border restructuring and insolvency in common law jurisdictions.

DD Growth Premium 2X Fund (the Company), was a Cayman Islands Ponzi scheme that concealed vast trading losses by attributing fanciful values to worthless bonds. As the GFC unfolded in 2008, RMF Market Neutral Strategies Limited (RMF) redeemed US$23m for its shares in the Company (the Payment). The Company was placed in liquidation a short time later and the Company's liquidators sought to claw the Payment back.

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.