Cayman Islands: Order Of Precedence

Arbitration, choice of forum clauses and winding up proceedings in the Cayman Islands: which takes precedence?

As in many other jurisdictions, there are statutory provisions in the Cayman Islands requiring the courts to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists which applies to the subject matter of the proceedings. Similar principles apply in the case of foreign exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

Several recent decisions have helped to clarify the relationship between the courts' exclusive statutory jurisdiction to wind up companies and exempted limited partnerships ("ELPs") and the ability of a party that opposes a winding up petition to enforce a prior arbitration or foreign exclusive jurisdiction agreement which is said to require the petitioner to have their claim determined in another forum.

Companies and ELPs are two legal vehicles frequently established in the Cayman Islands. Disputes between their stakeholders and claims against them by creditors commonly find their way before the courts in the form of winding up proceedings. In addition, winding up proceedings, and related claims for alternative relief under section 95(3) of the Companies Law (2013 Revision), have greater prominence in the Cayman Islands than in some other common law jurisdictions as a way for minority shareholders and limited partners to assert their rights, given the absence of a standalone unfair prejudice remedy in the Cayman Islands. It is therefore important in the Cayman Islands that there is a clear delineation between the types of disputes

which parties can agree to have resolved by arbitration or a foreign court and those which fall within the courts' exclusive winding up jurisdiction.

The approach that the courts have taken to this issue in relation to petitions by creditors on the grounds of insolvency differs somewhat from the approach in relation to petitions by shareholders or limited partners under the court's 'just and equitable' winding up jurisdiction. Each will be considered separately.

Creditors' petitions

It is well established that the courts' winding up jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a creditor in respect of a debt which is disputed on bona fide and substantial grounds. A winding up petition based on a disputed debt is liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The first of the recent decisions to consider this issue in the context of an arbitration clause was Re Times Property Holdings Limited [2011] CILR 223. A creditor petitioned to wind up a company on the grounds of insolvency. The company argued that the debt was disputed in light of arbitration proceedings underway in Hong Kong where the company's indebtedness to the creditor was to be determined. The court referred to the above principles relating to disputed debts and to the principle that parties should be held to their bargains. Although satisfied that there was a genuine dispute as to the debt, Foster J gave as his primary reason for staying the petition that:

"...it is not appropriate for this Court, even if minded to do so, to deprive the Company of putting its case and pre-judging the issue by seeking to determine the Company's dispute of the alleged indebtedness has no real substance. It seems to me that that question is for the arbitral tribunal in Hong Kong..."

By way of alternative conclusion, the judge found that, if he was wrong to adopt the above approach, the company's dispute of the alleged debt was on bona fide and substantial grounds. Foster J's primary conclusion suggests that the mere existence of proceedings in another forum, or a contractual right to have disputes resolved in another forum, is sufficient for the court to dismiss a winding up petition without having to determine whether the grounds of dispute are bona fide and substantial. In our view this would be an unorthodox approach to adopt and, as will be seen below, the courts have moved away from this position in subsequent decisions.

The same issue arose shortly afterwards in Re Duet Real Estate Partners 1 LP (Unreported, Grand Court, 7 June 2011). In that case, a Cayman Islands ELP (Duet) sought an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition against it on the basis that there was a genuine dispute about two debts said to be owed to a Luxembourg company (ESO) which had financed a resort project in Saint Barthélemy. The agreement in question contained a London arbitration clause and Duet had commenced arbitration proceedings. The basis of the alleged dispute over the debts was that Duet and ESO had made an oral agreement by which ESO had exchanged its rights under the financing documents for an equity interest in the resort project. Jones J found this argument to be "thoroughly disingenuous" in light of the contemporaneous documentary evidence which was inconsistent with any such oral agreement. The court found Duet's argument, that there was a genuine dispute over the debts, to be nothing more than a delaying tactic and dismissed its application.

The court did not mention the decision in Re Times Property Holdings Limited in its judgment. It is however clear that Jones J considered that that court was required to assess whether there was a genuine dispute over the debts and was not prevented from doing so by the existence of the arbitration clause or the arbitration proceedings in London. Jones J reached the same conclusion on similar facts in the later decision Re Ebullio Commodity Master Fund L.P. (Unreported, Grand Court, 24 May 2013).

Two further decisions have also adopted the approach of Jones J in Re Duet and Re Ebullio rather than the primary reasoning of Foster J in Re Times Holdings Limited. In Re SRT Capital SPC Ltd (Unreported, Grand Court, 22 November 2013) Foster J again had to consider this issue in the context of a petition by Morgan Stanley and Co International PLC against a Cayman Islands company, SRT Capital SPC Ltd, based on a debt alleged to be due from SRT pursuant to a swap transaction. The swap transaction documents contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. SRT argued that there was a dispute over the debt by virtue of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Morgan Stanley and that certain provisions of the transaction documents were unenforceable. SRT argued that it was contractually entitled to put these arguments to the English court.

Foster J referred to his decision in Re Times Holdings Limited and noted that "[t]he circumstances in [that case], upon which reliance was placed, were also different", although without giving any explanation as to why. The judge went on to note that it was "clear anyway that in that case, in which there were clearly factual issues, [he] gave consideration to whether the company's grounds for disputing the alleged debt were substantial". Foster J then considered whether there was a genuine dispute over the alleged debts and concluded that there was, dismissing the petition.

Finally, in Huawei Technologies v Hits Africa (Unreported, Grand Court, 29 November 2013), a case involving a debt alleged to be due to the petitioner for the provision of telecom equipment and services to a Cayman Islands company pursuant to an agreement that contained an arbitration clause, Quin J expressly adopted the approach of Jones J in Re Duet and Foster J in Re SRT Capital. On the evidence before the court, Quin J held that there was no genuine and substantial dispute over the debt and made an order winding up the company.

Petitions under the court's 'just and equitable' jurisdiction

Under the provisions of the relevant legislation, companies and ELPs can be wound up where "the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable" to do so. There is no single definition of the circumstances that make it just and equitable for the court to make a winding up order, but they have been held to include where the purpose for which a company or ELP was established is no longer capable of being achieved, and where there has been a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in management.

Where a winding up petition is filed against a company or ELP on just and equitable grounds and its constitutional documents contain an arbitration clause, a similar question to the above arises as to the circumstances in which the court should decline jurisdiction in favour of arbitration.

That issue arose in Re Cybernaut Growth Fund LP. (Unreported, Grand Court, 23 July 2013) which concerned a petition for the winding up of an ELP by limited partners representing 49.96% of limited partnership interests, on the grounds of a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the management of the ELP. The limited partnership agreement contained a New York arbitration clause and the general partner and majority limited partner applied to the Cayman Islands court to have the petition stayed or struck out on the grounds that the dispute had to be determined by arbitration in New York.

The issue before the court required consideration of comments made by Patten LJ in the English Court of Appeal decision Fulham Football Club (1986) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333. Although confirming that an arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a winding up order, the Fulham decision gave rise to the question of whether the tribunal could decide matters which might form the basis for a winding up order, but without going so far as to actually make a winding up order.

The court held that a just and equitable winding up petition such as that before it was not arbitrable for two reasons. First, a winding up order is capable of affecting third parties, whereas the source of an arbitral tribunal's power is contractual and so its orders only bind the contracting parties. Secondly, a dispute as to the identity of the liquidator to be appointed involves consideration of matters of public interest which are only suitable for determination by the court.

The court held that a stay of winding up proceedings in favour of arbitration would only be appropriate where the petition included either discreet inter partes claims, or matters which could be tried as preliminary issues, falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement. As neither situation applied in this case, the court concluded that the petition was non-arbitrable and dismissed the stay application.

It now seems clear as a matter of Cayman Islands law that a party opposing a creditor's winding up petition by relying on an arbitration or foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause must show that it has bona fide and substantial grounds for disputing the debt before it can have the petition dismissed. The weight of authority indicates that the Cayman Islands courts must test the submission that they lack jurisdiction to make winding up orders by asking whether there is in fact a genuine dispute over the debt, or whether the choice of forum provision is being invoked for purely tactical reasons. Similarly, the Cayman Islands court has shown that it will take a robust and proactive approach to jurisdiction when faced with a just and equitable winding up petition, as set out in the Cybernaut judgment.

These decisions are welcome as providing some clarity as to the relationship between the Cayman Islands courts' exclusive winding up jurisdiction and contractually agreed methods of dispute resolution. It is hoped that they will reduce the opportunity for parties to employ jurisdictional arguments to delay or frustrate appropriate substantive relief being granted where it is appropriate.

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
 
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