Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands Grand court recognises appointment of US receiver over Cayman company: Seiden v Link Motion Inc

By reference to a line of common law authority concerning its inherent power to recognise receivers appointed by foreign courts, including Schemmer v Property Resources Ltd, Kilderkin v Player and In re Silk Road, the Grand Court has recently granted recognition to a temporary receiver appointed in the US over a Cayman Islands incorporated company.

The Court’s jurisdiction to recognise overseas appointed receivers may be exercised where the court is satisfied there is a sufficient connection between the defendant and the jurisdiction in which the receiver was appointed. There are four tests, not all of which have to be answered affirmatively, for establishing whether a sufficient connection exists:

  1. Has the company subject to the receivership been made a defendant to the action in the foreign court?
  2. Was the company incorporated in the country where the receiver has been appointed?
  3. Would the courts of the company of incorporation recognise a foreign appointed receiver?
  4. Has the company carried on business in the jurisdiction of the appointment or is the seat of its central management located there?

In addition, following the Chief Justice’s decision in In re Silk Road, the court should also consider:

  1. The reasons or necessity for seeking recognition.
  2. Whether the receiver is seeking to do something which he/she could not do in the appointing jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the receiver seeks powers that would not be granted under Cayman law.
  4. Whether recognition would raise public policy concerns.

On the facts, the court held that whilst the fact that the company was a Caymanian company would ordinarily weigh against the recognition of a foreign receivership order”, it was satisfied that a sufficient connection existed, on the basis that the company had submitted to the jurisdiction of the US courts. The learned Judge was also satisfied that the additional Silk Road requirements had been met.

Under Section 11A of the Grand Court Law (2015 revision), the Grand Court has the power to appoint a receiver or grant other interim relief in relation to proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in a court outside of the Cayman Islands, or which are capable of giving rise to a judgment which may be enforced in the Islands. The procedure for applying for the appointment of a receiver, which includes a discretionary power on the part of the court to order security to be provided by the receiver in order to cover any liability for his acts and omissions, is governed by the Grand Court Rules. It is noteworthy that the Section 11A regime was not used in this case and that, instead, the receiver chose to seek recognition of his US appointment.

Cayman Islands Grand court recognises appointment of US receiver over Cayman company: Seiden v Link Motion Inc

Leave A Comment