Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands scheme of arrangement: Uni–Asia Holdings Limited

The Lernaean Hydra raises its head(s) again: The Cayman Islands scheme of arrangement of Uni–Asia Holdings Limited The Grand Court recently sanctioned a members’ meeting of a company for the purpose of considering a “migration” scheme of arrangement.

The arrangement proposed by the Cayman company was that its members exchange their shares for shares in a Singaporean company. The intended objective – an internal restructure – was that the Singaporean company became the new holding company for the group and the Cayman company became its subsidiary. Shareholders may hold their shares through a central depository, with the result that a single registered shareholder (the depository) may hold shares on behalf of several owners beneficially. This poses a unique problem in a members’ scheme of arrangement because the scheme is passed on a “head count” (and “value”) test. In the Cayman Islands, the approved approach is to look through the register and treat the registered shareholder as having a head for each beneficial owner, rather than a single head, for the head count test.

The challenge then becomes how to incorporate a mechanism into the scheme documents that enfranchises those beneficial owners to vote on the scheme when that right otherwise rests with the registered shareholder. The Court had previously approved an arrangement where a nominee was obliged to specify how and for whom it was casting its votes for and against. In this instance, the Court approved a mechanism by which the nominee gave voting proxies to each beneficial owner (or someone else appointed by the owner) in respect of that owner’s shares. The Court rolled up its sleeves when it came to the drafting of the scheme documents on that issue (and others) requiring that:

  • This mechanism be hard wired into the scheme documents – it was not sufficient to rely on a provision in the articles of association by which the registered shareholder was “deemed” to authorise a beneficial owner to act even without a formal proxy; and

  • The order specify that the registered shareholder be able to split its vote.

Leave A Comment