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

In the matter of Matrix Inc – Arbitral awards in Cayman Islands

In In the matter of Matrix Inc., the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered whether a debt owed under an arbitral award is disputed bona fide on substantial ground where a cross claim existed and deliberated on the proper exercise of its discretion in order to determine whether it should make a winding-up order.

Matrix Inc. (the Company) and Heathcliff Trading S.A., a Panamanian corporation (the Petitioner) referred a dispute over the sale of selenium-74 (a chemical most commonly used in glass production) to arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland.  An arbitral award was made which ordered, among other things, that (i) the Petitioner return the selenium-74 to the Company within 30 days; and (ii) the Company pay the Petitioner liquidated sums in excess of CHF 7.4 million. Despite demands made by the Petitioner, the Company failed to make the payment and the Petitioner filed a petition to wind up the Company on the grounds that the Company is unable to pay its debts under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Law (2018 Revision).

The Petitioner cited the incontrovertible proposition that a failure to pay an undisputed debt was in and of itself evidence of insolvency.

The Company argued that the Petition debt is disputed in good faith upon substantial grounds because the obligation to make payment under the arbitral award is “inextricably linked with the requirement for the Petitioner to transfer to [the Company] good title to 500.48 grams of selenium-74”.  That said, before the Petition was issued, the Company did not dispute its obligation to pay under the arbitral award and made no demand to the Petitioner to return the selenium-74.

The Grand Court considered the wording of the arbitral award, noting that in MNC Media Investment Limited v ANG [2016] (1) CILR it was held that “A foreign arbitral award is to be interpreted according to the plain and obvious meaning of its terms, thereby giving it an autonomous interpretation without recourse to national law.”

After considering the relevant factors, the Grand Court found that the Petition debt was not disputed on substantial grounds and made an order for the winding up of the Company on the basis that:

  • Unlike other obligations in the arbitral award which were expressed to be conditional (e.g. the obligation to return the selenium-74 “within 30 days”), the payment obligation imposed on the Company was unconditional and was expressed in immediate terms.
  • The wording of the arbitral award did not state that the payment obligation was connected with the Petitioner’s obligation to deliver the selenium-74.
  • The Company cannot otherwise demonstrate that it is solvent or has the ability to pay the Petition debt. No value was put on the cross claim but in any event the court had a wider discretion than that in determining whether or not to make a winding up order.
  • There was no discretionary basis upon which the court could refuse to make the winding up order sought.

 

Leave A Comment