Offshore Litigation Blog

The recent decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors confirms the acceptance of the “Mackay v Dick” principle as a matter of English Law.

In the recent decision of In the Matter of Tyr Capital Partners SPC Ltd, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered an application by Tyr Capital Partners SPC Ltd (the Fund) seeking an order that a winding up petition issued by TGT GP (the Petitioner) against the Fund be struck out pursuant to section 95(2) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) which provides that where a petitioner is contractually bound not to present a winding-up petition, the court shall dismiss or adjourn the hearing of the petition.

In a welcome decision of the BVI Commercial Court in its recent decision in the case of Ieremeieva v Estera Corporate Services (BVI) Limited, the court considered and clarified the positions as a matter of BVI law on (i) the requirements for establishing a person as a trustee de son tort and (ii) the reference date in determining whether an invalidated trust instrument is to be treated as invalidated ex tunc (from the date that it was executed) or ex nunc (from the date on which it was invalidated).

In a recent decision of the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (In the matter of a trust in favour of Lorenz and Lorenz), Justice Kawaley directed pursuant to section 48 of the Trusts Act (2021 Revision) that the applicant law firm could pay funds it had been holding on trust into court under section 69 of the Act, after indemnifying itself for its costs.

In a recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance in In the Matter of Dexin China Holdings Company Ltd, the Court considered an application for a validation order in respect of the transfer of shares in a Cayman company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange facing a winding up petition (the Petition) in Hong Kong based on an unsatisfied statutory demand.

The Privy Council has reversed years of settled law on the interplay between insolvency and arbitration proceedings.

It is widely accepted in the BVI, Cayman Islands and Bermuda courts, as well as other common law jurisdictions, that an asset disclosure order is an ancillary order which gives a freezing injunction “its teeth” and the purpose for which they are made is to police that freezing order. But how is the court persuaded to bite?

In the recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd (In Liquidation), the English High Court examined whether the effect of a debenture granted by the Company gave the benefit of a fixed or floating charge over its internet protocol (IP) addresses. The distinction was important, impacting recoveries for the Company’s unsecured creditors.

In the recent decision of Magomedov & others v PJSC Transneft & others , the English High Court provided guidance on the circumstances in which the court may grant anti-anti suit injunctive ancillary relief restraining parties from proceeding with foreign anti-suit proceedings, in the absence of any contractual agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English Court.