Cayman Islands: Olympus Brings The Cayman Islands Into Global Focus Once Again – Time To Reflect On Weavering And Directors' Duties!

Last Updated: 16 December 2011
Article by Sophia Harris

"It is the Directors' duty to satisfy themselves that the overall structure...was consistent with Cayman Islands industry standards.." - Jones J in Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited (in Liquidation) v Stefan Peterson & Hans Ekstrom 2011

The reports in the press have covered the continual unravelling of the camera giant Olympus Corp., exposing what is alleged to be many years of misrepresentation, dishonesty and fiscal mismanagement. The recent admission that three of Olympus' top executives in Japan colluded to hide losses from investors, which has resulted in the firing of its Executive Vice President over his role in covering up the losses along with the company's former Chairman and with every indication that its auditor will also step down.

The press however, has taken particular issue that Cayman companies were utilised in the apparent well-orchestrated mismanagement and less than transparent actions of the Olympus' directors and officers. Perhaps forgetting that the role of the Cayman Islands companies in this saga, could easily have been filled by onshore companies in London or Delaware, with the same outcome. After all it is less about the company, which is nothing more than an inanimate vehicle, or its location, and more about the mind and management behind the company.

Cayman's renowned financial infrastructure for hosting international business has, in fact, never been better! Its ultimate vindication came in November, when the Financial Stability Board (a supranational body which includes amongst its membership the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Committee on the Global Financial System) made the finding that Cayman has 'sufficiently strong' regulatory and supervisory standards when it comes to cooperation and information exchange on the global stage1. Territories were assessed based on their frameworks for the implementation of:

  • The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision;
  • The International Association of Insurance Supervisors Insurance Core Principles and Methodology; and,
  • The International Organization of Securities Commission Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation.

In that same month the G20 also cleared the Cayman Islands of the long standing myth of 'tax haven' status. In their recently published list of 'tax havens', Cayman was excluded, whilst jurisdictions such as Liechtenstein appeared on the list. This is an interesting and no doubt unwelcomed development for Liechtenstein, fighting to become a player in investment funds. Cayman also took the number one spot in The Banker's latest survey for the third year running as the leading specialist finance centre, by a wide margin. Additionally, Cayman has held its A3 rating by Moody's whilst competitor jurisdictions such as Guernsey have been downgraded and lost their A3 credit rating2. There is nothing to gloat about here as these are unprecedented times.

All that is needed to do legitimate business efficiently and effectively is available in the Cayman Islands and the Cayman Islands financial industry continues to rival those of its competing onshore jurisdictions and retains its edge.

Olympus' biggest shareholder demanded the resignation of the investor relations head, who allegedly assisted with the funneling of inflated advisory fees to the Cayman company and after his resignation, "the rest of the board must follow". The rationale for the shareholder's statement is logical, "Even if they didn't know how the specific details of where payments were going and exactly why, they knew that cash was going out the door and they also failed to raise their hands to ask questions3."

Although all the facts on Olympus have yet to be gleaned, the comment made by its main shareholder regarding the directors' obligation seems a valid comment. In this regard it is worth reflecting on the judgment in the recent case of Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited (In Liquidation) v Stefan Peterson & Hans Ekstrom, 2011 ('Weavering') which might seem to concur with the shareholder's statement.

The quandary of director's duties and responsibilities has been in some form or other addressed by the Cayman Islands Court over many years. It is well accepted in the global financial industry that part of Cayman's robust infrastructure is its judiciary and its court system, which is based on the British system. It has time and time again set recognized case law within the British Commonwealth.

Weavering however, was the first time that a Cayman court addressed directors' duties specifically with regard to an investment fund, but it was made clear the principles applicable to a company under common law were equally applicable to an investment fund. In so doing Jones J made a finding of [knowing] willful neglect or default and awarded a staggering US$111 million plus costs against the directors and it became the shot heard around the fund industry world. It is the first reported case in the Cayman Islands where the directors of a fund have been held accountable for the losses of a fund.

It is worth mentioning here that the circumstances of this particular case were particularly egregious and fall outside of the more routine disputes involving funds. In fact Jones J stated that the Weavering management structure was entirely conventional 'except in respect of the composition of its board of directors'.

In general, Jones J gave a useful summary (although not exhaustive) of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of directors, including those of non-executive directors, that will no doubt be relied upon to some extent by Courts in the future.

Directors owe fiduciary duties to their companies to act bona fide in the best interests of the company Accordingly they must exercise their powers for the purposes for which they are conferred and not to place themselves in a position where there is a conflict between their personal interest and their duty to the company.

A Director must exercise his powers independently, without subordinating those powers to the will of others, except to the extent that they have properly delegated their powers.

Specific to funds, it is conventional that the investment management, administration and accounting functions will be delegated to external entities or service providers and a company's independent non-executive directors will exercise a high level supervisory role. In this regard the Judge referred to Jonathan Parker J in Re Barings PLC, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker (No 54) and, adopting it as constituting Cayman Islands law, stated:

  1. Directors have both collectively and individually, a continuing duty to acquire and maintain a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the company's business to enable them properly to discharge their duties as directors.
  2. Whilst directors are entitled (subject to the articles of association of the company) to delegate particular functions to those below them in the management chain, and to trust their competence and integrity to a reasonable extent , the exercise of the power of delegation does not absolve a director from the duty to supervise the discharge of the delegated functions.
  3. No rule of universal application can be formulated as to the duty referred to in (ii) above. The extent of the duty, and the question whether it has been discharged, must depend on the facts of each particular case including the directors' role in the management of the company."

The Directors' duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence

The Judge noted here that the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence comprises both an objective and a subjective element. From an objective element he noted:

"Directors must exercise the care, skill and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably diligent person having the general knowledge, skill and experience reasonably to be expected of a person acting as an independent non-executive director of an open ended investment fund incorporated in this jurisdiction. They are expected to perform a high level supervisory role. They are expected to act in a professional, businesslike manner....Whilst independent non-executive directors rarely have the technical expertise and experience to be able to monitor sophisticated investment strategies and trading techniques in a direct hands-on manner, they are expected to satisfy themselves (on a continuing basis) that the investment manager's strategy is fairly described in the offering document and that the investment manager is complying with whatever investment criteria and restrictions have been adopted by the fund."

The subjective element of their duty of skill and care requires the exercise of knowledge, skill and experience which they actually possess. The professional qualifications and business experience of the directors of a fund is material information which needs to be disclosed in its offering document. Any conflicts of interest or other relevant information that would ensure that such disclosed information in the offering document is accurate and not misleading, is necessary to be included in the offering document.

The Directors duty to exercise an independent judgment

Here the Judge referred to Re Westmid Packing Services Ltd [1998]5 which was examined in the judgment, noting, 'delegation of responsibility is permissible, and often necessary, but total abrogation of responsibility is not. A board of directors must not permit one individual to dominate them and use them... '. Whilst the delegation of functions of investment management, administration and accounting functions are commonly delegated to contracted service providers, directors remain obligated to high level supervision of these functions and to exercise independent judgment in this regard.

In analyzing the directors' duties, it was also helpful that the Judge broke it down into three phases during the life span of the fund:-

  • Phase One – The Establishment of the Fund –

At this stage the directors should have made sufficient enquiries to ensure that they properly understood the nature and scope of the work each of the service providers were proposing to do and that there was a proper division of responsibility.

The scope of their own work as Directors was to be determined after a clear review of the work to be undertaken by the other service providers and understanding the contracts to be entered into by the service providers.

It is also interesting to note that the Judge found that the lawyers engaged to conduct the legal work on behalf of the fund do so in the best interest of their client i.e. the investment manager (who traditionally puts the fund together and engages the counsel to establish the fund) and not in the overall best interest of the fund. This might be somewhat of a surprising finding for some of us in the industry as we take the view that we represent the fund i.e. the company and in the event of a dispute the parties including the investment manager must seek separate counsel.

The Judge took the view that the directors could not rely on the lawyers to fulfil the directors' duties with regard to the offering document and retained their obligation of independent judgment.

The Judge also required the directors to satisfy themselves that the offering document contains all information necessary to enable a prospective investor to make an informed decision as to whether or not to subscribe for or purchase shares in the fund. The Judge made a further comment that, at the very least, the directors will need to make enquiries of the lawyers who have coordinated the work so as to gain a proper understanding of what has been done and with what result.

  • Phase two –Ordinary Course of Business

The Judge observed that one would ordinarily expect an agenda to be prepared and circulated in advance of each meeting, reflecting input from the investment manager, the administrator and the directors themselves. The agenda should specify the matters for discussion, the reports to be presented and the investment manager and administrator should be invited to participate, either in person or by telephone. In fact the Judge went further to state, "I would expect the agenda to provide for a representative of PNC [the administrator] to attend (at least occasionally) for the purpose of reviewing the funds monthly or quarterly management accounts with the Directors'.

A great deal of emphasis was placed by the Judge, on the need to have the investment manager and the administrator in attendance at meetings to provide guidance through their reports as was the requirement, for the directors to satisfy themselves that the fund was complying with the investment restrictions 'in an ordinary businesslike manner'. Whilst the Judge did not choose to address the issue of whether or not directors of an investment fund can properly delegate all their functions in respect of the financial statements, the Judge did state that independent directors of investments funds are 'expected to be able to read a balance sheet and have a basic understanding of the audit process.'

  • Phase Three – Crisis/Liquidation

Jones J did not outline any general duties and obligations that arose specific to this stage but rather detailed the continued failures of the directors in performing their general duties and obligations outlined in phases one and two which should have rightfully endured during this phase. The Judge did observe that the directors in this instance continued to fail to make the necessary enquiries or to fully understand the investment fund's financial condition, particularly in the context of the then, serious global financial crisis. In his view, an emergency meeting of the directors would have and should have been convened, at which all relevant representatives from the investment manager and administrator and possibly others, would have been required to attend.

The Specifics of Weavering

The board of directors in this particular case was made up solely of close family relatives of the principal investment manager, Mr. Magnus Peterson, i.e. his younger brother and his elderly stepfather (who was 85 years old by the time he gave evidence to the Court). Both of the directors however had the appropriate professional credentials and met the requirements for the fund to be listed on the Irish Stock Exchange. Jones J's comment, that Mr. Magnus chose to appoint his relatives rather than a 'real board of directors who could be expected to perform their supervisory role in an ordinary businesslike manner,' is key to his verdict.

The evidence that unfolded during the trial showed that the directors signed whatever documents were put in front of them by Mr. Magnus Peterson as the investment manager without making enquiry or applying their minds to the issues at hand, including proforma minutes that were pre-drafted and presented by the investment manager for signature by the directors. At some point in the early stages of the fund the directors signed resolutions appointing PricewaterhouseCoopers and learned after the event that Ernst & Young had been appointed instead as auditors.

In this case, the directors acted gratuitously without remuneration for their services as directors. The Judge determined that, this does not suggest that the scope of their duties were reduced and that they were not expected to perform duties normally performed by that of an independent non-executive director. Instead the nonpayment of the directors became evidence that they never intended to function properly as directors, but rather as a favour to their relative, Mr. Peterson. At this point Jones J distinguished Barings Plc6 and comments made by Sir Richard Scott V-C in that case that the level of a director's reward may be a factor in determining the scope of his responsibility. In the Weavering case the Judge took the view that in Barings Plc, the comments by Sir Richard Scott were an observation made in the context of a disqualification proceeding against a highly paid executive director, unlike Weavering, where they were independent non executive directors. Nonetheless this nonpayment did not reduce their duties and obligations as independent non-executive directors of an investment fund.

Amongst the evidence found against the directors, and perhaps most damning, were minutes that were created of meetings that never took place and backdated. And to further demonstrate the unusual egregiousness of this particular case, there was the issue of forged documents to which the investment manager admits, but suggests that he was authorized to put the signature of the directors to the document.

Whilst Cayman companies were utilized in the structure of this fund, it is interesting to note that none of the directors or any of the other officers in this saga were based in the Cayman Islands, prompting the Cayman Islands Directors Association to promptly issue a statement contrasting the actions of the directors in Weavering to the conduct set out in its Cayman Islands Directors Association Code of Conduct and citing their actions as 'abhorrent to the independent director profession'.

At the time of writing this article the Directors of Weavering are appealing both on facts and on law and the liquidators of Weavering have also filed an appeal.

In October 2011 Solomon Harris hosted a Webinar presentation: Directors' Duties After The Weavering Decision. A link to the Firm's slide presentation follows.

http://www.solomonharris.com/images/documents/directors_duties_after_weavering_04.10.11.pdf

Footnotes

1. Tax-News – Global Tax News 14th November 2011

2. Telegraph 15th November 2011

3. Bloomberg 9th November 2011

4. 1999, 1 BCLC 433 at p. 489

5. 2 BCLC 646 at p. 653b-c

6. Re Barings Plc, Secretary of State v Baker [1998] BCC 583 at p 586

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions