Deloitte The 26th Cayman Captive Forum By Cayman The primary difference is that a provisional liquidation is often appointed ex parte, where it is felt that there is an immediate threat to the entity’s assets or structure. by contrast an official liquidator is appointed at a court hearing normally due to a significant stakeholder dispute or the entity’s insolvency. Official and provisional liquidation services inevitably there are times when an entity’s financial problems are so severe or there are stakeholder disputes that cannot be resolved resulting that court supervised liquidation is the only option.
About Deloitte In Cayman Islands The traditional "provisional liquidation" regime, that has historically been used in circumstances where a company intends to pursue a restructuring. these amendments will be welcomed by debtor companies and their stakeholders. we believe they will place the cayman islands in an even. The main change is that “restructuring officer” proceedings have replaced the traditional "provisional liquidation" regime, that has historically been used in circumstances where a company intends to pursue a restructuring. these amendments will be welcomed by debtor companies and their stakeholders. The court in kingkey has confirmed that the appointment of light touch provisional liquidators under section 104(3) of the companies act remains an important remedy in the cayman court's toolkit. the court provided helpful guidance on one of the circumstances where the appointment of provisional liquidators will be preferable to restructuring. The provisional liquidation was an ancillary proceeding to chapter 11 proceedings in the us, in which a restructuring plan (the “plan”) had been proposed. the jpls’ work resulted in a successful application to the grand court of the cayman islands (the “cayman court”) for the purposes of approving the transfer of.
Deloitte Join Our Audit Team In Deloitte Cayman Islands The court in kingkey has confirmed that the appointment of light touch provisional liquidators under section 104(3) of the companies act remains an important remedy in the cayman court's toolkit. the court provided helpful guidance on one of the circumstances where the appointment of provisional liquidators will be preferable to restructuring. The provisional liquidation was an ancillary proceeding to chapter 11 proceedings in the us, in which a restructuring plan (the “plan”) had been proposed. the jpls’ work resulted in a successful application to the grand court of the cayman islands (the “cayman court”) for the purposes of approving the transfer of. The jpls implemented a cross border debt restructuring that spanned between hong kong and the cayman islands. by august 2020, the jpls have secured commitments from a prospective investor – spearheaded by dr. cheng chi kong, adrian (the third generation executive of a hong kong listed conglomerate, new world development co. ltd.), due largely. This article discusses recent guidance from the cayman islands court in two decisions which demonstrate that the pl regime lives on (albeit that the scope of its new lease on life remains yet to be fully determined). After a substantial industry consultation process, the cayman islands has introduced the concept of a court appointed restructuring officer into part v of the cayman islands companies act (the ‘companies act’) with effect from 31 august 2022. If an investigation is required before any decision can be made as to whether a restructuring is viable, one potential avenue to explore is to seek to appoint provisional liquidators under the relevant provisions of the companies act.