Cayman Islands: The Cayman "Oppression Remedy" Considered In Re-Acorn International, Inc.

Last Updated: 18 February 2016
Article by Fraser Hughes

Back in April 2009, I wrote about the changes made to the Cayman Islands' Companies Law that created a form of "oppression remedy". Such a remedy is a feature of most common law jurisdictions. It allows company shareholders to apply to court to obtain relief in circumstances where their interests are being unfairly disregarded. That relief often involves orders that regulate the affairs of the company going forward to remedy the conduct or a manner by which minority shareholders' shares may be purchased – a kind of corporate divorce.

In the Cayman Islands, the "oppression remedy" can only be obtained as alternative relief in a petition to wind up a Cayman Islands company on the just and equitable ground. The 2007 amendments to the Companies Law contain those alternative powers, set out in subsection 95(3) of the Companies Law (2013 Revision). They include powers in the nature of injunctive relief and a general power to regulate the conduct of the company's affairs in the future.

An unusual feature of the Cayman Islands "oppression" provisions is that a party seeking relief from the court must first meet the test for winding up the company (i.e. ending it as a going concern) in order to have recourse to the alternative relief (Camulos v. Kathrein [2010] 1 CILR 303). Put another way, a party seeking the "oppression remedy" relief in Cayman does not have a free standing remedy.

This creates a strange anomaly. In order to justify relief less invasive than ending the company as a going concern, a party must show that the facts justify ending the company as a going concern. This needs to be done on the basis of over 100 years of precedents that looked only to the question of whether winding up, and only winding up, was justified.

My 2009 paper on this issue speculated as to whether using the winding up principles as a type of jurisdictional trigger for granting less invasive relief could lead to either,

i) the granting of alternative relief becoming rare in the Cayman Islands; or,

ii) the various tests established to (previously) justify winding up the company would relax in terms of the nature and severity of facts required to meet the test.

A recent decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jones, Q.C. of 6 March 2015, in the matter of Acorn International, Inc1 ("Acorn") considered and applied s.95(3).

Acorn was a Cayman Islands company listed on the NYSE that served as a holding company for a group of businesses conducting TV direct sales business in PRC. A petition was brought by a company representing the majority shareholders (the "Majority Shareholders") and a crosspetition was brought by companies representing the minority shareholders (the "Minority Shareholders").

A peculiar aspect of the Cayman oppression remedy was brought to light immediately in the decision as,

"[b]oth petition and crosspetition necessarily plead that it would be just and equitable for the Court to make a winding up order, but both petitions ask the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 95(3) of the Companies Law to make orders for alternative relief."

The oppression remedy was born to (among other reasons) provide a judicial mechanism to resolve shareholder battles without liquidating a company's assets and ending it as a going concern. Where a company has going concern value, the last thing that a disgruntled shareholder might want is to realise his shares by the destruction of that going concern value – cutting the corporate baby in half.

Yet case law interpreting s.95(3) suggests that a petitioner must seek the very thing he might not want (to wind up the company) in order to seek the thing that he actually wants (an alternative to winding up the company). This forces the petitioner to argue against (some of) the very relief that he seeks in the petition.

In Acorn, the court concluded that the Minority Shareholders effectively used their control of the Board of Directors to,

i) remove a representative of the Majority Shareholders from office; and

ii) to refuse to hold an EGM in the face of a threat by the Majority Shareholders to use such a meeting to change the Board of Directors and take it away from the effective control of the Minority Shareholders. The court concluded that,

"[w]hether or not a winding up order is an appropriate remedy must depend on the basis upon which the Court comes to the conclusion that the jurisdiction is engaged. In this case the jurisdiction is engaged because the Petitioner has justifiably lost all confidence and trust in the Company's directors who have acted in bad faith and exercised their powers for the improper purpose of disenfranchising the Majority Shareholders so as to perpetuate the Minority Shareholders' control of the board. It is not necessary to make a winding up order to remedy this wrong. This complaint is capable of being remedied by an order that a meeting of the shareholders be convened for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, passing the resolutions which Mr Roche has been attempting to put forward on behalf of the Majority Shareholders and I do not consider that the pursuit of this particular remedy is unreasonable in any way.
I have also concluded that it would be unjust in the circumstances of this case to exercise the Court's discretion by imposing upon the Petitioner (and the Majority Shareholders) a remedy which they are not seeking." (at paragraphs 71 and 72)

The Majority Shareholders might not have been seeking to wind up the company (in oral argument) but as this decision states, they were necessarily seeking to do that in their petition, because it has to be brought by a winding up petition.

As stated above, recourse to s.95(3) can only be had if one can establish that it would otherwise be just and equitable to wind up the company. Put another way, but for s.95(3), would the court have wound up the company following established principles and case law? Arguably, the answer in Acorn should have been no. It is well established that a winding up might be justified on the basis of a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in a company's directors and that loss is justifiable where there is a proven lack of probity in the conduct of the company's affairs. However, it is also established that a winding up petition should be dismissed if the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy (Camulos v. Kathrein [2010] 1 CILR 303).

The court in Acorn concluded that the directors acted in breach of their fiduciary duties. This would normally ground a cause of action by the company, or a derivative action by its shareholder, against its directors and (on the facts in Acorn) likely justify an injunction to prevent the ongoing breaches. In addition, to the extent that the actions of the directors amounted to a breach of Acorn's articles the Majority Shareholders might well have been in a position to enjoin the breach. As succinctly stated by Justice Henderson in Russell Alternative Investments Funds Plc et al v Laurus Offshore Fund, Ltd. et al2,

"First, the articles of association constitute a contract to which all of the members of the company and the company itself must adhere. Second, the Court may restrain a company and its directors from acting in a way which violates the articles."

Since these alternatives appear to have been available, the petition might well have failed on the basis that adequate alternative remedies were available.

Ultimately, the relief granted in Acorn appears unassailably just by putting the control of the company back into the hands of the Majority Shareholders and (consistent with oppression remedy case law) the court went only so far as was necessary to remedy the oppression.

The law of the Cayman Islands in respect of the "oppression remedy" continues to evolve. As it stands now, it is said to be the case that the jurisdiction of the court to make orders pursuant to s.95(3) is only engaged if it can be shown that the court could otherwise make a winding up order. The difficulty with that state of affairs is that the body of law established to determine when a winding up order can be justified (as taken from English and other common law jurisdictions) has evolved in jurisdictions where stand-alone oppression remedies are available. Naturally, the barrier to entry is high since the result is ending the company as a going concern, and disproportionately high if the same test is being used to determine when a court can grant relief that is far short of ending a company as a going concern.

It might not be intellectually sustainable to use a test meant to determine that winding up only (and no alternative relief) is justified – and to use it to determine if alternative relief is justified. The temptation to incrementally relax the jurisdictional trigger might prove irresistible.

1 Acorn International, Inc. FSD 109 of 2014. Coram: Jones J

2 Ruling - Russell Alternative Investments Funds Plc et al v Laurus Offshore Fund, Ltd. et al Cause No.430 of 2008 18.09.08.


About the Author

Fraser Hughes (B.A., LL.B, J.D.) is a Litigation Partner with Conyers Dill & Pearman. He has particular expertise in fraud, accounting, insolvency and mutual fund-related litigation. Fraser has been involved in most of the significant hedge fund insolvency disputes in the Cayman Islands over the last seven years. Prior to joining Conyers in 2007, he was a distinguished member of the Ontario bar and has extensive trial experience, appearing as counsel in numerous high-profile insolvency and restructuring matters, including representing a key defendant in a civil conspiracy matter that turned into one of the longest civil trials in Canadian history.


Originally published in Cayman Finance Magazine, 2015-2016, Issue 2

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
 
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
 
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