Cayman Islands: Winding Up A Cayman ELP – Post Judgment Admission Of Evidence And Costs

A recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands1 considered the principles upon which a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership ("ELP") may be wound up by the Court under its 'just and equitable' jurisdiction2, the Court's power under section 95(3) of the Companies Law to grant alternative remedies when hearing a winding up petition and to admit evidence after the release of a judgment but before the order is sealed.  

The Background 

Cybernaut Growth Fund, L.P. (the "Partnership") was an ELP invested in various operating companies in the People's Republic of China.  Five of the six limited partners, together holding just under 50% of the limited partnership interests (the "Petitioners") presented a winding up petition against the Partnership pursuant to section 15(4) of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2012 Revision) (the "Law"), based on a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the general partner's management of the Partnership.  The general partner (the "GP") had become dysfunctional due to, amongst other reasons, a dispute between its principals involving allegations of misconduct and the GP's failure to provide audited financial statements and other financial reports as required by the limited partnership agreement (the "LPA") and the Law. 

Although it was common ground between parties that the Partnership should be brought to an end, the petition was opposed by the GP and the other limited partner, which held just over 50% of the limited partnership interests ("Oriental") (together, the "Respondents").  The Respondents argued that the Partnership should be wound up in accordance with the voluntary liquidation provisions in the LPA and that the GP should act as voluntary liquidator. 

Winding Up on Just and Equitable Grounds

It was not disputed that the Partnership could be wound up if there had been a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the GP's management of the Partnership.  The onus was on the Petitioners to establish the managerial misconduct by the GP alleged in the petition, such that the intervention of the Court was warranted.  The Court found that, based on the evidence, the Petitioners were justified in bringing the petition.  The Court placed particular reliance upon the GP's failure to provide proper financial transparency and the breakdown in the relationship between the principals of the GP.  

The Respondents argued that, despite the Court's finding that there had been a justifiable loss of trust and confidence, the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to make a winding up order for the following reasons. 

First, that the Petitioners were not seeking the benefit of a class remedy but were instead seeking a winding up order for an improper reason: to receive the benefit of a preference over Oriental because the LPA gave the Petitioners priority in the distribution of realisations of Partnership assets over Oriental.  The Respondents argued that the Petitioners were seeking a winding up order not as a class remedy but to take advantage of this preference and therefore the winding up was not demonstrably for the benefit of the limited partners as a whole.  The Court held that this argument did not justify refusing a winding up order as the mere fact that the financial circumstances of the Partnership were such that one limited partner may face a greater risk of losing its investment did not provide a basis for denying the Petitioners a winding up order.  In any event, the GP's evidence was that the value of the Partnership's assets would be sufficient for Oriental to have an equal financial interest in the winding up of the Partnership with the Petitioners. 

Secondly, that the Court should not interfere with the contractually agreed dissolution process set out in the LPA which provided that upon the termination of the Partnership the GP was to act as voluntary liquidator and the GP could only be replaced in the case of gross negligence, reckless disregard, wilful misconduct or bad faith.  The Respondents argued that the Petitioners' case did not establish any of those matters and therefore nobody other than the GP was entitled to act as liquidator of the Partnership.  Again the Court was not persuaded by this argument and concluded that the events which had occurred prior to the filing of the petition led to the conclusion that the GP was dysfunctional and that it had demonstrated that it was incapable of taking even basic steps which were necessary to dissolve the Partnership. 

Thirdly, that the Petitioners had alternative remedies.3  The Respondents argued there were three alternative remedies open to the Petitioners: (1) an offer would be made by the Respondents' to purchase the Petitioners' partnership interest (although as it turned out no such offer was actually made prior to the conclusion of the trial); (2) the enforcement of the Petitioners' statutory and contractual rights of access to the Partnership's books and records; and (3) a voluntary liquidation pursuant to the LPA with the GP acting as liquidator.  Jones J did not find these alternative remedies viable and in the circumstances considered that they did not justify the Court exercising its discretion to refuse to make a winding up order. 

The Court therefore ordered that the Partnership be wound up. 

Post Judgment Applications

The Court provided the parties' attorneys with a draft of its written judgment on 29 August 2013, in accordance with its usual practice.  At the hearing to hand down the judgment, the GP made an application for: (a) leave to adduce evidence of discussions relating to a potential buy-out of the Petitioners' limited partnership interests by the Respondents; and (b) an order pursuant to section 95(3)(d) of the Companies Law (2012 Revision) (as an alternative to a winding up order) for the purchase by the GP and/or Oriental of the Petitioners' partnership interests. 

It was not disputed that a trial judge has a discretion to receive new evidence after a judgment has been given, but before the Court's order has been sealed.  Jones J adopted the position set out in the English decision Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd4 as representing Cayman Islands law.  The Charlesworth case held that a trial judge is entitled to take a more flexible approach in the admission of new evidence than the Court of Appeal, as set down in Ladd v Marshall5. 

Jones J refused to admit the new evidence and found that " is obviously not new evidence at all.  It is evidence which the Respondents decided to withhold from use at trial.  It is only new evidence to the extent that it described the sequence of events taking place since trial, culminating in the buy-out offer made on 8 September."  The buy-out offer made on 8 September following the trial which was referred to in the evidence the respondents were seeking to admit had been made when the Respondents knew that the Court had decided that the Petitioners were entitled to a winding up order.  In these circumstances the Court would not be persuaded by the evidence that the Petitioners' decision to reject the offer was unreasonable, such that it would dismiss the petition or make an order under section 95(3)(d).  The Respondents had a reasonable opportunity at the trial to argue in favour of a buy-out order as an alternative remedy but chose not press the argument, or to provide evidence of the prospects of a buy-out offer being made.  The Court was not prepared to permit the Respondents to re-open their case in relation to a buy-out of the Petitioners' limited partnership interests and dismissed the Respondents' application. 

As is usual in these circumstances, the Court ordered that the Respondents pay the Petitioners' costs of the proceedings.  However, the Petitioners also applied for an order that the GP not be permitted to call upon the indemnity in the LPA for defending the winding up petition.  Jones J noted that when considering a costs order for a contributory's petition (in the case of a company) or a limited partner's petition (in the case of an ELP), the appropriate costs order will depend upon whether the Court has directed at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings that the proceedings be treated as an inter partes proceeding between the shareholders/partners or proceedings against the company/ELP which is the subject of the petition.  In these circumstances, by a prior order of the Court, the proceedings were to be treated as inter partes proceedings and the GP was made a Respondent to the proceedings in its own right.  Jones J found that where such an order has been made "...the general rule is that none of the costs be paid out of the assets of the [partnership] and the unsuccessful parties should pay the costs of the successful parties..."  However, the Court made no final determination on this point as the GP had not yet made any claim on the indemnity. 


The Grand Court's decision offers helpful guidance concerning the Court's approach to the exercise of its just and equitable jurisdiction to wind up ELPs and as to the standard of conduct expected of general partners of Cayman Islands ELPs in fulfilling their duties under the relevant LPA and the Law.  This case has re-affirmed that the well-established legal principles applicable to the winding up of companies will apply to ELPs, while also clarifying the Court's position in relation to the admission of further evidence following delivery of a draft judgment to parties' attorneys and the appropriate costs orders in winding up proceedings.


In re Cybernaut Growth Fund, L.P. (Unreported, Jones J, Grand Court, 12 September 2013).  Maples and Calder acted for the petitioning limited partners.

2 Section 92(e) of the Companies Law (2013 Revision) as applied to ELPs by section 15(4) of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2013 Revision).

3 A winding up petition on just and equitable grounds will be dismissed, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, if there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and that he is acting unreasonably in not pursuing it.  See the Court of Appeal decision in Camulos Partners Offshore Limited v Katherin & Co 2010 (1) CIHL 303.

4 [2000] 1 WLR 230

5 [1954] 1 WLR 1489

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

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

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
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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