Cayman Islands: Court Of Appeal Guidance On Just And Equitable Winding Up Petitions

The recent judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal ("CICA") in Asia Pacific Limited v ARC Capital LLC1 explains the approach that the Court will take when considering an application to strike-out a contributory's just and equitable winding up petition which is based on an offer to purchase the petitioner's shares at fair value. 

The decision also confirms the principles that the Court will apply when awarding indemnity costs where it is argued that a party has conducted proceedings improperly, unreasonably or negligently.  


Trikona Advisors Ltd ("Trikona") was a Cayman Islands company which acted as investment advisor to an investment fund, Trinity Capital Plc.  

Both the ultimate beneficial ownership and management of Trikona were split 50/50 between two individuals, or members of their families, Aashish Kalra and Rakshitt Chugh.  Mr Kalra and Mr Chugh were both directors of Trikona and each had nominated one further director to the board.  However the Court found that Trikona's affairs were managed solely by Mr Kalra and Mr Chugh and that the other two directors took no part in the company's management. 

In the proceedings before the Grand Court, it was common ground that Trikona should be regarded as what is known as a "quasi-partnership" company. The Privy Council has described quasi-partnership companies as "[c]ompanies where the parties possess rights, expectations and obligations which are not submerged in the company structure". The Court went on to note that a feature of such companies is that "the legal, corporate and employment relationships do not tell the whole story... behind them there is a relationship of trust and confidence similar to that obtaining between partners, which makes it unjust or inequitable for the majority to insist on its strict legal rights. 

In 2008 and 2009 a number of disputes arose, and the Judge found that by the end of 2009, the relationship between Mr Kalra and Mr Chugh had broken down.  In December 2011 one of the registered shareholders through which Mr Kalra held his beneficial interest in Trikona ("Asia Pacific") commenced proceedings in Connecticut against Mr Chugh alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.  Asia Pacific alleged that Mr Chugh had sabotaged Trikona and had stolen assets from the company and it sought damages of US$210 million. 

Shortly after the commencement of the Connecticut proceedings, the director of Trikona nominated by Mr Chugh resigned and Mr Kalra and the director that he had nominated then signed a written resolution removing Mr Chugh as a director. 

In February 2012, the two registered shareholders through which Mr Chugh held his beneficial interest in Trikona (the "Petitioners") commenced winding up proceedings in respect of Trikona in the Cayman Islands pursuant to the Court's just and equitable winding up jurisdiction, relying principally on Mr Chugh's removal as a director.  The Petitioners argued that, as Trikona was a quasi-partnership, there was a legitimate expectation that Mr Chugh would participate in its management and that there had been a breakdown in trust and confidence between the parties. 

After the commencement of the winding up proceedings, Asia Pacific made an offer to purchase the Petitioners' shares in Trikona and applied to have the winding up petition struck-out as an abuse of process.  Pursuant to section 95(3) of the Cayman Islands Companies Law, on hearing a contributory's winding up petition on just and equitable grounds, the Court has jurisdiction to grant the petitioner certain relief as an alternative to a winding up order.  This includes an order that the petitioner's shares be purchased by another shareholder.  

The mechanism for determining the fair value of the shares in the offer from Asia Pacific purported to comply with the principles approved by the House of Lords in O'Neill v Phillips.4   However both the Grand Court and the CICA found, for slightly different reasons, that the offer did not comply with the principles set down in that case and in the CVC case referred to in footnote 3 above.  

After dismissing the strike-out application, the Grand Court proceeded to hear the trial of the petition and made a winding up order against Trikona.  The Judge made strong adverse findings against Mr Kalra, including that he was a wholly unreliable witness and that the allegations made by Asia Pacific in the Connecticut proceedings were "a thoroughly dishonest abuse of process".  The Grand Court ordered that Asia Pacific pay the Petitioners' costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis. 


There were three grounds of appeal pursued by Asia Pacific, each of which was dismissed by the CICA.  Two of the grounds turned on the application of orthodox principles relating to the very limited scope for the CICA to overturn the trial Judge's findings of fact, where the findings are based on the Judge's assessment of the witnesses' oral evidence given at the trial. 

The more noteworthy part of the judgment concerns Asia Pacific's argument that the Judge had erred in failing to dismiss the petition on the basis that its buy-out offer provided the Petitioners with an adequate alternative remedy which they were acting unreasonably in not pursuing. 

The CICA began its discussion of this issue by noting that, when making a buy-out order under section 95(3) of the Companies Law, the Court does not dismiss the winding up petition, it allows the petition.  The gateway to the granting of alternative relief (i.e. the buy-out order) pursuant to section 95(3) is that the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for a winding up order. 

The CICA went on to hold that the Judge was wrong to apply the analysis set out in Camulos Partners Offshore Limited v Kathrein and Company in a "buy-out offer" case.  In Camulos, the Court struck-out a winding up petition on the grounds that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy, in the form of an ordinary writ action by which it could obtain the relief that it wanted (namely payment of its redemption claim and orders restraining payments to other investors but not to it) and the petitioner was trying to exert improper pressure on the company by pursuing winding up proceedings to procure leverage.  The reasoning in Camulos does not apply to the petition in the Asia Pacific case because, where a petitioner's objective is to obtain a winding up order or a buy-out order under section 95(3), the winding up petition is the appropriate route. 

The CICA recognised that a petitioner which rejects a buy-out offer at fair value for its shares should normally expect to have its petition dismissed.  However that is not because of the existence of an alternative remedy, but because if, at the stage of an application to strike-out the petition before trial, the Court is satisfied that the likely outcome of the petition will be that the Court will allow the petition and will determine that the order most favourable to the petitioner will be a buy-out order on the terms already offered to the petitioner, the continued pursuit of the petition will be an abuse of process. 

The CICA went on to state that, in a quasi-partnership case (at least where the petitioner is a 50% shareholder), it is not necessarily unreasonable for the petitioner to refuse a buy-out offer: 

"Why should [a 50% shareholder] not take the view that an equitable solution to the breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence upon which the quasi partnership was established would be for him to have the opportunity to purchase the other party's 50% share; or for the company should be sold to a third party; or for the company to be wound up?  And why should he not take the view that, if agreement cannot be reached as to an equitable solution, he would prefer to await the judgment of the court after a trial rather than to be forced to agree to a solution which he sees as inequitable?

In dismissing the appeal against the indemnity costs order, the CICA approved the approach followed by the Grand Court in Al Sadik v Investcorp Bank BSC.6    In determining whether a party had conducted proceedings "improperly, unreasonably or negligently"7,so as to justify an order for indemnity costs, a distinction has to be drawn between a party who advances an honest case, but who fails because the Court finds their evidence to be incredible or untruthful, and a party who advances a case which they know to be false.  Only in the latter case can the Court make an order for indemnity costs. 

The CICA cautioned against acceding too readily to a strike-out application in these circumstances.  Striking out a winding up petition without hearing all the evidence, simply because of the existence of an offer to buy the petitioner's shares risked pre-judging the substantive issues: 

"It may be that, in the light of the analysis contained in the judgment of this Court as to the proper approach to an application to strike out a contributory's winding up petition in circumstances where the petitioner is a 50% shareholder, future strike out applications in such cases will be regarded as made unreasonably...". 

It remains to be seen how the courts will interpret and apply these comments, and the comments referred to above that a 50% shareholder is not necessarily acting unreasonably in refusing a buy-out offer, in future cases.  In particular, it remains to be seen whether the approach in this case is followed in all just and equitable winding up proceedings where the company in question is a quasi-partnership, or whether it will be confined to situations where the company is a quasi-partnership and the petitioner is a 50% shareholder. 


1. Unreported, CICA, 22 April 2015. 

2. Although there was a dispute in the Grand Court proceedings as to the identity of the parties to the quasi-partnership.  In the appeal proceedings, the Appellant unsuccessfully sought to change its position to argue that the Judge was wrong to find that Trikona was a quasi-partnership between Mr Kalra and Mr Chugh.

3. CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd v Demarco Almedia [2002] CILR 77 at [34] per Lord Millett.

4. [1999] 1 WLR 1092.

5. [2010] 1 CILR 303.

6. [2012] (2) CILR 33.

7. Within the meaning of Order 62, Rule 4(11) of the Grand Court Rules.

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