Offshore Litigation Blog

On 8 July 2025, New Horizon Health Limited (the Company), a Cayman company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), filed a petition to appoint provisional liquidators (PLs).

In a recent decision of In the matter of TROOPS Inc, the Grand Court declined to appoint joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) on an ex parte basis over TROOPS Inc. (the Company). The ruling provides a useful reminder of the Court’s “especially cautious” approach to pressing the “nuclear button” of appointing JPLs, especially when that appointment is sought on an ex parte without notice basis.

The Grand Court’s recent decision in Re Superb Summit International Group Ltd [2025] CIGC (FSD) 62 offers a legally straightforward, albeit unusual, illustration of how Cayman Islands restoration and winding-up procedures can be utilised to support foreign regulatory enforcement efforts, particularly where cross-border fraud is alleged and local recovery action is essential.

In the recent English case of Waypark Commercial Mortgage Ltd v Vanguard Number 1 Ltd (In Liquidation), the Court had to consider whether the sale of property by a secured creditor of a company in liquidation was impacted by the automatic stay imposed by section 130(2) of the English Insolvency Act, 1986.

This article examines how the ‘immovables rule’ intersects with the practice of modern cross-border insolvency under English common law.

Over the past decade, the Hong Kong courts have given multiple important judgments concerning their power to wind up foreign companies. In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal provided important clarification regarding a key element of this power.

In a recent decision involving the China Evergrande Group, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance reaffirmed the policing provisions of disclosure orders under Mareva/freezing injunctions.

In a recent landmark decision, the Singapore High Court in Re Taylor, Joshua James and another (Official Receiver, non-party) addressed the treatment of unclaimed cryptocurrencies during the liquidation of Eqonex Capital Pte Ltd, a digital asset exchange operator.

The BVI has robust corporate insolvency legislation, fostering recoveries for creditors in the event of a liquidation. This article examines two areas where the BVI’s legislation, as interpreted by its Courts, is particularly developed: unfair preferences and challenges to the decisions of liquidators, as well as other office-holders. The strength of the BVI’s corporate insolvency legislation provides a reason for companies to incorporate in the territory.

The UK Supreme Court has recently provided important clarification as to the breadth of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd (Bilta), holding that it is not intended to apply only to persons exercising management or control of the company’s business, but extends also to third party outsiders who have assisted or knowingly become parties to the carrying on of fraudulent business.

In the recent decision of In the Matter of Position Mobile Ltd SEZC, the Cayman Islands Grand Court has thoroughly reviewed the legal test as to whether the documents of a subsidiary are within the “power” of its parent company in the context of a specific discovery application in winding-up proceedings. The decision also serves as a helpful reminder on the importance of formulating specific discovery applications with precision and full particulars.

In a recent BVI case, the Commercial Court navigated various issues arising out of a winding up application brought by a creditor against a struck off and dissolved BVI company, based on an unregistered foreign judgment.