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

OVS Capital Management (Cayman) Limited FSD 207 of 2016 (CQJ)

In OVS Capital Management (Cayman) Limited FSD 207 of 2016 (CQJ), the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ruled on an application for the restoration of a company (the Company), which had been struck off for failure to pay its annual returns; with a further application that the Company be permitted to continue in voluntary liquidation, without Court supervision, in circumstances where a declaration of solvency had inadvertently not been filed.

By reason of the retirement of the Company’s sole shareholder, it was resolved that the Company be placed into voluntary liquidation.  Before the process was complete, the Company had been struck off but still held assets which had not been distributed. The result was that the undistributed assets vested in the Crown.  Accordingly, the petitioners sought the restoration of the Company so that the assets could distributed to the sole shareholder.  Before the Court can exercise its discretion to restore a company, it must be satisfied either that the company was in operation or it was otherwise just for restoration to be ordered; s.159 of the Companies Law.   It was held that the fact that the Company was solvent and was seeking to secure the distribution from the liquidation of its subsidiary and distribute assets to its shareholder satisfied the criteria of “in operation”.  The Court further held that it was “just” to have the Company restored so that the voluntary liquidation could continue as intended to realise assets for distribution.

So far, so good.  Uncontroversial.  However, regarding the failure to file a declaration of solvency, Section 124 of the Companies Law imposes a statutory duty upon a voluntary liquidator to make an application for a supervision order when it is determined that a company in voluntary liquidation is, in fact, insolvent. The rationale for Court supervision is to ensure that an insolvent company should not be allowed to continue in voluntary liquidation unsupervised. The absence of a declaration of solvency gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of insolvency, but the Court has discretion to decide whether or not to make a supervision order; see Pan Ji China Fund FSD 31 of 2014.  Despite the inadvertent failure to file a declaration of solvency, the Court was satisfied that the evidence showed that the Company was solvent and was able to pay its debts in full within 12 months from the commencement of the winding up.  The failure to file was an administrative error by the voluntary liquidator.  The declaration of solvency was re-executed and filed later.  Accordingly, the learned Judge held that a supervision order was not necessary in this particular case.

 

Examiner

Leave A Comment