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 Islands Court of Appeal confirms key finding in Ctrip v eHi was wrong

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has confirmed that a shareholder’s just and equitable winding-up petition does not need to advance a class remedy for the benefit of all shareholders as was previously held in Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd v eHi Car Services Limited.

In Ctrip, Justice Kawaley held that a petitioner cannot properly use a just and equitable winding-up petition to further its own commercial interests; it can only seek relief designed to vindicate the rights of shareholders generally. In addition, Justice Kawaley held the main purpose of eHi’s petition was quite obviously to advance a rival merger bid supported by the petitioner, not to advance the class interests of the shareholders on whose behalf the petitioner was meant to be representing.

The Court of Appeal in Tianrui (International) Holding Company Limited v China Shanshui Cement Group Limited essentially disagreed with Justice Kawaley that a shareholder petitioning on the just and equitable ground is meant to be representing the interests of the shareholders as a whole. The Court of Appeal accepted that if a creditor’s petition did not invoke a class remedy the petition may be an abuse of process, but doubted the same principle would apply in respect of a shareholder’s just and equitable petition. Lack of a class remedy, at most, may support an argument that the petition is brought for an improper purpose.

The Court of Appeal held that a shareholder’s petition will likely include complaints particular to that shareholder, which may not be relevant to other shareholders. A shareholder must be able to petition against acts of the company promoted by other shareholders, the remedy to which will clearly not seek to benefit those very shareholders behind those acts. 

This is welcome clarification that shareholder-petitions brought on the just and equitable ground do not need to have the purpose of advancing a class remedy on behalf of all shareholders and failure to do so will not in and of itself result in a finding that the petition was brought for an improper collateral purpose and an abuse of the process of the Court.

Cayman Islands Court of Appeal confirms key finding in Ctrip v eHi was wrong

Leave A Comment