This article first appeared in Volume 20, Issue 1 of International Corporate Rescue and is reprinted with the permission of Chase Cambria Publishing - www.chasecambria.com.

Synopsis

The Irish Government has published the details of a new 'out-of-court' rescue process for small companies, the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process or 'SCARP'. The process seeks to borrow some features from the well-established examinership rescue process, but with one fundamental difference, being the limited role of the Irish courts proposed for SCARP. The relative high cost of examinership for smaller companies has historically been found to be a barrier for entry.

Following a recent hearing, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Grand Court") has handed down a notable judgment (the "Judgment") approving the remuneration of the Principal Liquidators of Herald Fund SPC (In Official Liquidation) ("Herald")1 incurred during a six-month period, the entire amount of which had been opposed by Herald's Liquidation Committee.

This article considers the range of vehicles available in the Cayman Islands for alternative investment fund ("AIF") structures designed for financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, family offices and (U)HNWs (as opposed to retail investors), as well as the legal and regulatory considerations that may influence the structure of an AIF. A summary of the key similarities and differences between the regulation of closed-ended and open-ended AIFs in the Cayman Islands is also considered.

Cayman Islands AIF Vehicles

2020 was a crippling year for the aviation industry. With daily cash burn running into the tens of millions of dollars for many airlines, access to liquidity has been critical as treasury teams and fleet managers juggle expenses with decimated revenue. Many governments pledged state aid but what has been delivered to date has simply not been enough.

The ‘Golden Goose’

In the recent judgment of the ECSC in the matter of Sumner Group Mining Limited v Zica S.A (BVIHC (Com) 2020/0171, Walkers successfully represented the respondent in defending an application to set aside a statutory demand. Jack J provided helpful guidance on the legal principles in circumstances where it is alleged that a statutory demand had been served improperly for a collateral purpose.

The applicant sought to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of either:

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Court") recently handed down a decision in the case of BDO Cayman Ltd. and BDO Trinity Ltd. v Ardent Harmony Fund Inc. (In Official Liquidation). This case provides helpful guidance on the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant leave to commence proceedings against a company in liquidation.

Background

Practical Effects Of Significant Reforms To Guernsey’s Insolvency Law With reference to practical examples from England & Wales, this briefing note seeks to highlight three areas of change that will be of particular interest to Insolvency Practitioners, directors involved with Guernsey companies and their professional advisors once the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the “Ordinance”) comes into force. Enhanced Investigatory Powers The Ordinance extends insolvency professionals’ powers in four important respects.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Grand Court”) in the matter of Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited (FSD 160 of 2020), the Chief Justice considered the principles applicable to the appointment of “soft touch” provisional liquidators to effect the restructuring of a Hong Kong-listed Cayman Islands company where two competing winding up petitions were filed before the High Court of Hong Kong (the ("HK Petitions" and the “HK Court” respectively).

On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.

Background