Blog

As a matter of Cayman Islands law, liquidators wishing to sell company property by way of public auction or private contract may only do so with the sanction of the Grand Court. Many such sanction applications are uncontested and may be suitable to be heard on the papers. Sanction applications are not, however, mere rubber stamping exercises. That is especially true where they are opposed.

In the recent case of Tianrui (International) Holding Company Limited v China Shansui Cement Group Limited, the Grand Court gave judgment on the defendant’s applications to strike out a contributory’s winding up petition for abuse of process and an application to strike out a subsequent writ action by the petitioner.

In this episode, Julie Engwirda and Ian Mann discuss directors’ duties and obligations where a company is experiencing financial pressure.

In ACE International (B.V.I.) Limited [2020] HKCFI 498 Mr Justice Jonathan Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that if a company is incorporated in a jurisdiction such as the BVI, which has a similar unfair prejudice regime to Hong Kong, and the company does not have a place of business in Hong Kong generally, the dispute between shareholders should be litigated in the place of incorporation, because the petitioner is behaving unreasonably in seeking exclusively a just and equitable winding up.

The Grand Court has handed down its decision in yet another important case concerning share appraisal rights under section 238 of the Cayman Islands Companies Law. The extensive and wide ranging judgment, the first following the Privy Council’s recent decision in Shanda Games, is notable for its analysis of how the general legal principles governing the Court’s jurisdiction to determine the fair value of shares ought to be applied.

On 24 February 2020, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the Court) delivered judgment for a contested directions hearing on In the Matter of Ehi Car Services Limited (unreported, 20 January 2020). It is not the first time that directions have been contested against a landscape of evolving section 238 litigation where Judges have been asked to resolve issues regarding the development of its procedural regime.