Blog

The Grand Court’s recent costs ruling in Re Global-IP Cayman serves as a word of warning to would-be ‘friendly creditors’ (creditors who agree to bring a creditor’s winding-up petition at the instance of a party that lacks standing to petition as a creditor itself) that they may find themselves footing a hefty bill for legal costs.

In the recent Cayman Islands decision of Raiffeisen International Bank AG v Scully Royalty Ltd and others, the Grand Court has considered the little utilised asset enforcement tool contained in the Fraudulent Dispositions Law (the FDL).

As reported in our Century Sunshine blog, Justice Jack, in the BVI Commercial Court recently appointed joint provisional liquidators over four BVI companies on a “light touch” basis following the precedent set down in Constellation. The terms of the joint provisional liquidators’ appointment mean that they will supervise the ongoing management of the companies by the existing boards of directors and ensure that the companies work towards a “holistic” restructuring of the wider Group’s debts.

In the recent judgments of Justice Parker in the Cayman Islands, Chief Justice Hargun in Bermuda and Justice Jack in the British Virgin Islands, “light touch” provisional liquidators were appointed across Century Sunshine Group Holdings Limited (the Company) and group companies. This is one of the first cases where provisional liquidators were appointed across three jurisdictions in a coordinated manner with the aim of enabling a holistic restructuring of the group. It will stand as an interesting case where the JIN guidelines can be implemented to enhance communications between Courts to facilitate a coordinated restructuring.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in Re G3 Exploration Limited, the Grand Court confirmed that a secured creditor of a Cayman company has standing to petition for the winding-up of the company regardless of whether its debt is fully or partially secured.

In the long running case of Global Water Associates, the Privy Council overturned the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in relation to its decision on remoteness of damage reinstating the first instance judge’s decision. The matter will therefore be remitted back to the arbitrators for assessment of damages.