Offshore Litigation Blog

The recent Cayman Islands case of In the Matter of TFKT True Holdings provides valuable insight to the factors considered by the Grand Court when determining whether to grant a stay of a winding up petition pending the determination of parallel proceedings in Hong Kong.

In Performance Insurance SPC the Grand Court recently considered the approach that official liquidators should take when valuing contingent claims. The Court held that the right approach is to estimate a figure for the contingent liability on a full indemnity basis. The liquidator is not entitled to fix the contingent property rights of creditors at any less than the maximum sum that might reasonably be incurred.

In the recent decision of In the Matter of Madera Technology Fund (CI), Ltd, the Cayman Islands Grand Court considered the principles and authorities in relation to the determination of the valuation date for a buy-out order as an alternative remedy to a just and equitable winding-up petition.

In the recent decision of Re Mega Gold Holdings Ltd, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to follow the Privy Council’s BVI decision Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd which clarified the approach to winding-up petitions in the context of agreements to arbitrate.

When a creditor with standing presents a winding up petition and the Court is satisfied that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts, the starting position is that the petitioning creditor is entitled to a winding up order as of right (or ex debito justitiae). The burden then falls on the respondent company to show the Court that a winding up order should not be made.

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 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.

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 and important decision of Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal confirmed that an arbitrable cross-claim against the petitioner can be a ground for dismissal of a winding-up petition.