Blog

In the decision of Re Altair Asia Investments (delivered on 16 March 2020) the Grand Court adjourned a creditor’s winding up petition pending delivery of judgment in Hong Kong in proceedings against the guarantors of the debt on which the petition was based. The decision exemplifies judicial comity between the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong where judges are astute to avoid jurisdictional clash or inconsistent findings.

In the recent case of Re China Singyes Solar Technologies Holdings Limited, the Hong Kong Court took another look at the Gibbs rule in sanctioning a parallel scheme of arrangement.

We would like to say a massive thank you to all of the runners who joined our virtual Fun Run on Monday 16 March in lieu of our annual INSOL 5KM run which was understandably cancelled this year. We received some great responses from around the world and are happy to have been able to provide a bit of positivity during what are most definitely challenging times.

By reference to a line of common law authority concerning its inherent power to recognise receivers appointed by foreign courts, including Schemmer v Property Resources Ltd, Kilderkin v Player and In re Silk Road, the Grand Court has recently granted recognition to a temporary receiver appointed in the US over a Cayman Islands incorporated company.

Since the 2014 English decision in Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited v Altomart Limited, there has been debate about how common law courts should approach winding-up petitions based on debts arising under contracts containing arbitration agreements. In the recent judgment of Re Asia Master Logistics Limited, the Hong Kong court has added a forceful new perspective to this debate.

The Grand Court has handed down its decision in yet another important case concerning share appraisal rights under section 238 of the Cayman Islands Companies Law. The extensive and wide ranging judgment, the first following the Privy Council’s recent decision in Shanda Games, is notable for its analysis of how the general legal principles governing the Court’s jurisdiction to determine the fair value of shares ought to be applied.