1.All eyes on redemption right

Redemption rights have increasingly been under the spotlight in the past year, as more and more investors contemplate an exit from under-performing investments.

As the redemption of shares involves a return of capital, it is prohibited under Cayman Islands law except to the extent permitted by statute. Section 37 of the Cayman Islands’ Companies Act (the Act) provides:

One of the most important aspects in arranging any fund finance transaction is structuring the security package. As anyone that has ever looked at a complete structure chart for a fund financing transaction knows, even a “simple” private fund structure typically involves a number of different entity types (limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.) organized in several jurisdictions (Delaware, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, etc.).

The concept of an ‘insolvent trust’ is somewhat of a paradox. A trust is not a separate legal entity in the way that companies are and, as such, cannot be insolvent in the technical sense. Trustees legally own assets in a trust for the benefit of beneficiaries.

1. 始めに

年始になると、今年の経済・法律情勢はどうかという話がよく議論される。特に日本はゼロゼロ融資の問題 もあり、法的倒産事件が増加するのではないかとも議論されるが、近時の情勢においては、それ以外のいく  つかの点に留意する必要があるように思える。概括すると、①法的倒産手続への社会の期待はそれほど大き くない状態にあること、②他方で、経済的苦境以外の法的問題点が増加していること、③もう少し幅広い視

点で見ると、経済環境の変化をどのように捉えるか、という 3 点が重要といえる。

2. 私的整理手続が活発な理由

In this article we explore the key trends which are currently shaping the landscape of private wealth disputes, including mental capacity as a central theme in private wealth disputes, trust insolvency and disputes relating to trustee investments.

Mental capacity

Mental capacity is increasingly a central theme on the landscape of private wealth disputes. Why? The starting point is that there is, more so than at any point previously, a wider recognition of the seismic consequences of establishing mental incapacity on the part of the relevant decision maker.

Do you have any Cayman vehicles that you are considering terminating?

Hugh Miall and James Fennemore acted for the successful claimant beneficiaries in an important decision concerning insolvent trusts and powers exercised for an improper purpose.

By means of a category two Public Trustee v Cooper application, in which Jeffrey Elkinson and Britt Smith of Conyers, led by Brian Green KC, acted for the successful plaintiffs, the first plaintiff as trustee, and the second plaintiff as protector, of three family trusts¹ sought to give effect to a 2018 settlement agreement reached between all of the adult beneficiaries concerning the collective assets in the trusts.

Over the past two years, there has been an interesting trend of courts, in certain circumstances, borrowing from principles of insolvency law when determining analogous questions of trust law. Most recently, the private wealth industry has seen this very application in connection with the now infamous proceedings relating to the trust known as the Ironzar II Trust[1].

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the Federal Court’s recent decision inFotios (Bankrupt) v Helios Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 251, and earlier decisions in the same proceedings, clarifying the current Australian position as to priorities between creditors of successive trustees.

Key takeaways