Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

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

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
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
  • London
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

The law has changed: Assistance to Hong Kong liquidators of a Cayman Islands company

In the recent landmark Cayman Islands case of China Agrotech Holdings Limited, Justice Segal, citing with approval the Singapore decision of Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and the Cayman Islands decision of FU JI Food Catering Services Holdings Limited, held that the Grand Court could grant common law assistance to a liquidator who was not appointed in the place of incorporation of the company.

On its face, this is contrary to the well-established rule 179 of Dicey, Morris & Collins that “the authority of a liquidator appointed under the law of the place of incorporation is recognised in England”. However, the ratio decidendi in this decision is quite different to the decision in Re Opti-Medix Ltd. The decision is ultimately a boon for cross border restructuring and a victory for common sense.

The Cayman Court considered an application by the Hong Kong liquidators (the Liquidators) of a Cayman Islands company, China Agrotech Holdings Limited (the Company), together with a letter of request issued by the High Court of Hong Kong to seek powers and authorities, by way of common law assistance, to act on behalf of the Company to present a petition to promote a scheme of arrangement between the Company and its creditors in the Cayman Islands as part of a corporate rescue involving a parallel scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong. 

In permitting the Liquidators to apply on behalf of the Company to present a petition under section 86(1) of the Companies Law (2016 Revision) (Companies Law) to promote the parallel scheme in the Cayman Islands, the Court held that:

  1. Since the Liquidators were appointed in a place other than the Company’s place of incorporation, they could not be empowered to act on behalf of the Company under Cayman Islands’ private international law;

  2. However, the Grand Court could and should exercise its discretion to recognise and assist the Liquidators in authorising them to make an application under section 86(1) of the Companies Law and to consent to the proposed scheme on the Company’s behalf. The question was essentially one of governance: whether the Liquidators should be permitted to act on behalf of the Company in promoting the scheme, in circumstances where the directors had shown no sign of wishing to take any action to either support or oppose the promotion of the scheme. There was no intention to wind up the Company in its home in the Cayman Islands.  For over two years, creditors had submitted proof of debts to the Liquidator in Hong Kong;

  3. Stakeholders would be given an opportunity to object to this course, since the hearing as to the standing of the Liquidator was ex parte;

  4. In addition, case management powers, such as requiring any action against the Company in the Cayman Island to be listed before the same judge, would ensure that proceedings against the company could be stayed or adjourned pending the outcome of the sanctioning of the scheme (the s97 moratorium only being available to Cayman Islands appointed liquidators);

  5. The Court was unable to grant relief as provided in the letter of request to treat the Liquidators “in all respects in the same manner as if they had been appointed as joint and several provisional liquidators by [the Hong Kong] Court”.
Hong Kong

Leave A Comment