Damages award of US$111m against errant directors
The judicial proceedings around the Weavering case both
in the Cayman Islands and in England have been well reported. In
Cayman, the judgment issued on 26th August 2011 by the Hon Mr.
Justice Andrew Jones QC determined that the two directors of the
Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited (the "Fund")
had conducted themselves in a manner which constituted
"wilful neglect or default" thus excluding them
from access to the indemnification provisions of the Fund's
Articles of Association and leaving them personally liable for an
award in damages exceeding US$100m. The judgment was appealed.
The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands issued its judgment on
the appeal on 12th February 2015 and although supporting the
findings of Jones J that the directors had breached the duties owed
by them to the Fund, they did not support the decision of the Grand
Court that the conduct or lack thereof by the directors amounted to
"willful default or neglect" and the appeal was allowed.
In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal analysed the case law
treatment and essence of the word "wilful" and concluded
that, as the directors' conduct lacked the essential element of
a conscious decision by them not to perform their duties to the
required standard, they could not be found to have performed an
intentional or a reckless breach of duty which amounted to wilful
The central findings of the Court of Appeal were in stark
contrast to those of Jones J at first instance, in particular:
no finding that either director had made a deliberate and
conscious decision not to read the financial reports provided to
them knowing that failure to do so was in breach of his duty.
no finding that the directors appreciated or at least suspected
that their conduct might be a breach of duty but they proceeded
regardless of the outcome.
a finding that albeit that the negligent conduct of the
directors fell beneath the standard owed to the company, their
conduct was consistent with their having a different understanding
to the judge of how they should fulfill their duty to perform a
supervisory role and accordingly it lacked the element of being
The Court of Appeal decision emphasises the "wilful"
nature of a director's conduct and makes it clear that whether
a director's act or omission is wilful neglect or default will
depend on the views of that director, not those of the court. A
director failing to carry out his duty or performing it to a poor
level of competence will not by that alone be held to have acted in
In his ruling at first instance Jones J set out a detailed set
of standards for best practice in the corporate governance of
Cayman Islands funds. The industry seized upon that and many
revisited their internal systems and controls to ensure compliance
with the announcements of the court. The judgment also led the
Cayman Islands Monetary Authority to issue a public consultation on
fund governance and ultimately resulted in new legislation being
passed regulating certain providers of directorship services.
In its ruling the Court of Appeal did not invalidate the
findings of Jones J as to the requirements applicable to the
directors of funds but clarified that a failure to meet those
requirements did not, alone, mean that there was a clear intention
by a director to not perform their role.
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.
Failure to comply with company law in Hong Kong can be very expensive for businesses. In a highly dynamic business and regulatory environment such as Hong Kong, it is challenging for business owners to remain fully aware of the latest legal requirements.
In our article " Characteristics of the Commercial Agency Law of the United Arab Emirates" published with Mondaq on 27.09.2016, we outlined the general applicability of the UAE Commercial Agency Law (Federal Law No. 18 of 1981 including its amendments).
Confidentiality of corporate documents and information is one of
the key attractions of incorporating a company in the BVI. A
company search of the BVI Registrar of Corporate Affairs will only
disclose certain information and documents.
Luxembourg's Companies Act ‘reform bill' includes new rules for conversions of company types and introduces the S.à r.l.-S.
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”
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).