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

Saad – the journey continues

In a recent important decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, the Court ruled on the test applicable for interim distribution of liquidation estate assets where a proprietary claim is being litigated against the estate. The ruling is the latest in a long line of decisions related to the Saad litigation which are shaping the legal landscape in the Cayman Islands.

An application was made on behalf of the Joint Official Liquidators (JOLs) of Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) (SICL) for an interim payment of dividends pursuant to the Companies Law (2018 Revision) and the Companies Winding Up Rules. The JOLs sought Court sanction to make the distributions to creditors, subject to indemnities provided by those creditors, and notwithstanding the fact that AHAB’s proprietary claims over SICL’s assets (and the assets of the other defendants in the matter at large) are yet to be determined.

The JOLs had been permitted to pay the costs of defending AHAB’s claim throughout the year long hearing in the Grand Court and up to the determination of the appeal (in which a decision is awaited) but were not permitted to make distributions to creditors. In this application, the JOLs proposed that any creditor who wished to receive a dividend would enter into an undertaking to secure the value of such payment by means of a bond from a financial institution with a credit rating of A- or greater.

The test applied by the Chief Justice was that set out in the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Edennote Ltd, that the Court should ordinarily respect the commercial decision of the liquidator, unless the course of action is “so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable person would have done it”. The Chief Justice accepted that this was not the case in this application.

The Court considered the practicalities of a scenario where AHAB’s claim may take years ultimately to be determined and where AHAB’s claims at first instance had failed – whatever the outcome in the Court of Appeal, the matter would likely include an outing in the Privy Council. These considerations led him to find that “in no sense then can it be said that the JOLs’ proposal is unreasonable, let alone so patently absurd such as to justify, in keeping with settled case law, refusal of the Court’s sanction.”

Saad – the journey continues

Leave A Comment