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

Scheme sanction and uncompromised creditors

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Re Freeman FinTech Corporation Limited), Segal J provides guidance on the principles to be applied when sanctioning a cross-border scheme of arrangement and the potential impact from creditors who fall outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Freeman FinTech Corporation Limited was a Cayman Islands incorporated company whose shares were listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. After falling into financial difficulties, “light touch” provisional liquidators were appointed to the company and terms of a debt restructuring were proposed to its unsecured creditors. The compromise was to be promulgated through parallel schemes of arrangement in Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands. The debt of one unsecured creditor of the company, representing approximately 1-2 per cent of the company’s overall debt, was however governed by Macau law.

Segal J conducted a review of the authorities in relation to the function of the Court at a sanction hearing and concluded that the court must be satisfied that: (1) the statutory requirements were complied with; (2) the class of creditors the subject of the court meeting were fairly represented and that the statutory majority had acted bona fide and did not coerce the minority; (3) an intelligent and honest person, a member of the class concerned and acting in respect of his own interests, might reasonably approve the scheme; (4) there was no “blot” on (defect in) the scheme; and (5) there was no other reason which would preclude the court from sanctioning the scheme such as the scheme not achieving substantial effect if it was sanctioned (the court will not act in vain).

With regard to the Macau law governed debt, the creditor did not participate in the scheme or otherwise submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and consequently, there was a risk that the scheme would not be effective against him. Segal J conducted a review of the authorities and, adopting a pragmatic approach, held that based on the evidence before him, the court would not be acting in vain by sanctioning the scheme because the Macau creditor had not indicated any intention to take enforcement action, and even if he did, the amounts involved were sufficiently small to avoid interfering with the implementation of the scheme or impacting the fairness of the compromise as regards the other unsecured creditors.

This decision represents a useful summation and confirmation of the principles pertinent to Cayman Islands scheme sanction applications in the context of a cross-border debt restructuring.

Scheme sanction and uncompromised creditors

Leave A Comment