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

Cayman costs ruling a word of warning to "friendly creditors"

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.

The facts were somewhat unusual. The petition was presented by Global-IP Cayman’s (the Company) former Cayman attorneys on a debt of just US$175.84 for unpaid legal fees. However, by the petitioner’s own admission, the true purpose of bringing the petition was not to recover the unpaid fees, but rather to allow a minority shareholder (STM) to make an application for the appointment of provisional liquidators to consider whether the Company’s business should be restructured. The plan ultimately failed though, as the Company’s majority shareholder (Bronzelink) simply settled the unpaid fees.

Upon dismissal of the petition, a dispute arose as to whether the petitioner should be awarded its costs of and occasioned by the petition on the indemnity basis, as is the usual course when a petition debt is settled after presentation of a petition. The petitioner argued that as the debt was not disputed when the petition was brought, and has since been paid, it was successful and the usual costs order should follow. Bronzelink challenged this on the ground, amongst others, that the petition was not a normal creditor’s petition but was instead a contrived plan between the petitioner and STM to enable STM’s application for provisional liquidators to be heard, which had failed; in those circumstances, the petitioner should in fact pay its costs.

The Court did not find wholly in favour of either party; it did not order the petitioner to pay Bronzelink’s costs, however it also refused to award the petitioner its costs (some US$65,000). In reaching its decision, the Court held that the petitioner had not acted improperly in agreeing to be STM’s friendly creditor (as it genuinely considered a restructuring to be in the Company’s best interests), and thus there was no basis on which to make a finding of impropriety against the petitioner. However, the Court also held that since the true purpose for which the petition was brought had failed, the petitioner could not be said to have been successful and therefore, on the “exceptional circumstances” of this case, the usual costs order was not appropriate.

Cayman costs ruling a word of warning to "friendly creditors"

Leave A Comment