Cayman Islands: Distributing Remaining Value In Liquidated Feeder Funds

Last Updated: 28 September 2016
Article by Shaun Maloney

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has determined how the remaining value in a liquidated feeder fund should be distributed amongst investors.

Introduction

On 2 September 2016, Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC delivered a landmark judgment, determining how the remaining value of a Cayman feeder fund in official liquidation should be distributed amongst its investors (Pearson v Primeo Fund1

The case is the most recent chapter in the ongoing Primeo litigation2 and provides valuable guidance to liquidators of Cayman feeder funds as to the scope of their power to facilitate an equitable distribution of value to investors.

Facts

Herald and Primeo were open-ended investment funds.  They both placed funds for investment with a Madoff-related entity called BLMIS. 

In 2007, Primeo assigned the credit of its account with BLMIS to Herald in return for subscribing for shares in Herald (the "In Specie Subscription").  The amount of Herald shares provided to Primeo was based on the perceived value of Primeo's account with BLMIS, which at that time was valued at US$466M. 

In 2008, it was discovered that BLMIS was a Ponzi scheme, with the consequence that every reported NAV had been misstated, including the NAV used to calculate the value of Primeo's consideration under the In Specie Subscription.

Herald was subsequently put into liquidation and its liquidator sought to determine how the remaining value in the fund should be distributed amongst its shareholders.  In particular, the liquidator was tasked with determining whether Primeo's shareholding in Herald should be adjusted to reflect the fact that it had received a greater number of shares in Primeo than it would have otherwise received if the actual value of its account with BLMIS had been known at the time of the In Specie Subscription.

The Court had previous decided3 that the liquidator had the power under section 112(2) of the Companies Law to rectify Herald's share register.  The issue before the Court in this instance was:

(a) whether Herald's share register should be rectified; and

(b)  if so, on what basis should any rectification be performed?

Decision

Should the register be rectified?

The Court began by noting that the concept of rectification under section 112(2) of the Companies Law implied restoring the register to a position that accurately reflected the relative position of all shareholders, as it would be if all subscriptions and redemptions had been transferred at a "true" NAV per share. 

Since every subscription and redemption of shares in Herald after the initial offering had occurred on the basis of a fraudulently misstated NAV, the Court found that there "could be no clearer case" in which the power of the liquidator under section 112(2) should be exercised.

However, Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC made it clear that section 112(2) did not confer any power on the liquidator to interfere with the proprietary rights of individual shareholders.  Section 112(2) is in the nature of a class remedy.  As such, any rectification needed to apply equally to all remaining shareholders. 

On what basis should rectification be performed?

The liquidator submitted that the register should be rectified, so that the net loss of subscription monies in Herald was borne rateably and the remaining shareholders shared equitably in the pool of funds available for distribution.  Two methods were proposed to achieve this.

Net Investment Method – This method calculates each shareholder's economic interest on the basis of the amount of their total subscriptions, less any redemptions, as a percentage of the total surplus funds available for distribution.  So long as the amount paid for a shareholder's total subscriptions exceeds the amount of their redemptions, they receive a pro rata share of any assets available for distribution.  However, this method favours those shareholders that have already received significant amounts of their capital contribution prior to redemptions being suspended, at the expense of investors that have redeemed smaller amounts.

For illustration purposes, in a hypothetical scenario where there is $5M available for distribution and four investors have subscribed for the same amount, but redeemed different amounts, the Net Investment Method would distribute the remaining funds as follows:

Investor

Subscription amount

Redemptions prior to suspension

% of remaining value ($5M)

Allocation of remaining value ($5M)

Total return

A

$10M

$8M

8%

$0.4M

$8.4M

B

$10M

$5M

20%

$1.0M

$6.0M

C

$10M

$2M

32%

$1.6M

$3.6M

D

$10M

None

40%

$2.0M

$2.0M

Rising Tide Method – This method directly takes account of redemptions that have already been paid to investors, in addition to the remaining value in the company.  It works by distributing remaining funds to shareholders, according to the value that each shareholder has already realised.   In effect, this means that shareholders that have redeemed less of their investment are paid in priority to those that have already received a larger return. 

When this method is applied to the same hypothetical scenario of distributing $5M to the four investors, the following allocations are made:

Investor

Subscription amount

Redemptions prior to suspension

% of remaining value ($5M)

Allocation of remaining value ($5M)

Total return

A

$10M

$8M

-

-

$8.0M

B

$10M

$5M

-

-

$5.0M

C

$10M

$2M

30%

$1.5M

$3.5M

D

$10M

None

70%

$3.5M

$3.5M

Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC saw merit in the Net Investment and Rising Tide methodologies, in that they would both create a result whereby Herald's shareholders could share in the common misfortune of Madoff's fraud.  However, he concluded that section 140(1) of the Companies Law prevented either method from being available. 

Section 140(1) requires the property of a company in liquidation to be distributed equally amongst its members according to their respective rights and interests.  The Court was of the view that rectifying the register in accordance either the Net Investment or Rising Tide methodologies would amount to lifting the corporate veil of Herald and treating the shareholders as if they were trust creditors having a proprietary claim against a co-mingled pool of assets, rather than shareholders with equal rights.  For this reason, the Court held that neither methodology was legally admissible.

Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC found that the proper approach was to assign a constant "true" NAV for each and every subscription and redemption throughout Herald's active life.  Since Herald's NAV had been fraudulently misstated since its inception, the "true" NAV was held to be the initial offering price of the shares.  All NAVs after this date needed to be disregarded, despite the value that may have actually been assigned (and paid) for shares at the time. 

The Court consequently directed the liquidator to recalculate each subscription and redemption of shares in Herald at this constant "true" NAV and rectify the share register accordingly.  Herald's shareholders would then participate in the distribution of Herald's property in the liquidation pro rata according to the size of their revised shareholdings.

How does this apply to Primeo's In Specie Subscription?

In most cases, the approach taken by Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC will produce similar economic results to the Net Investment Method.  However, this is not so in relation to in specie subscriptions.

Had the liquidator been able to apply either the Net Investment or Rising Tide methodologies, the size of Primeo's shareholding in Herald could have been adjusted based on the net amount of cash that Primeo had originally invested in BLMIS (US$150M).  However, based on the approach adopted by the Court, the size of Primeo's shareholding needed to be determined according to the (incorrectly) perceived value of the consideration that Primeo provided in the In Specie Subscription (ie US$466M).  It was irrelevant that this value had itself been calculated on the basis of a fraud by BLMIS.4

The liquidator was required to restate the number of shares which Primeo ought to have been issued under the In Specie Subscription in return for its consideration of US$466M at the "true" NAV.  Even though this approach would result in Primeo being allocated with a much greater number of shares and benefitting in the liquidation at the expense of other Herald shareholders, the Court made it clear that the power to rectify the register was for the benefit of the shareholders as a class and that the "true" NAV needed to be applied to all subscriptions and redemptions, including Primeo's In Specie Subscription.

Points of interest

The approach taken by the Cayman Court demonstrates the constraints that legislation can impose upon judicial decision-making.  Even if applying either the Net Investment or Rising Tide methodologies could have resulted in a more equitable outcome for Herald's shareholders as a whole, the Companies Law prevented the Court from being able to order rectification in accordance with either of these approaches.

In contrast, if Herald had not yet been put into liquidation, its directors may have had more freedom to apply a method that was more equitable to all shareholders.  Section 140(1) only applies in a liquidation context.  Whilst there is always an obligation to treat shareholders pari passu, directors of an active company have more freedom in working out what each investor's respective interest is before getting to the pari passu calculation (ie by reference to the company's articles of association and offering memoranda).

The Rising Tide Method is likely to achieve the greatest overall parity between shareholders; however, it can only be applied once the final amount available for distribution is known.  If shareholders wish to have their relative entitlements determined in advance of this being ascertained, the Net Investment Method could be applied.

A primary advantage of the approach taken by Mr Justice Andrew Jones QC is that the actual value exchanged for each subscription and redemption does not need to be identified.  Not needing to incur the expense of conducting such an investigation may leave a greater amount of funds available for ultimate distribution.  It would also protect investors who may have taken ownership of shares for less than their stated NAV (ie in a related party transaction) from being unduly penalised, as the actual consideration provided would be irrelevant to their entitlement.

Conclusion

Whilst the other Herald shareholders may feel aggrieved at Primeo being able to retain the benefit of the fraudulent NAV calculation under the In Specie Subscription, the Court's hands were effectively tied. The Net Investment and Rising Tide Methods were found to be legally inadmissible and inconsistent with the obligations imposed by the Companies Law.

The power of rectification must be applied equally to all shareholders and any method of distributing the remaining assets of a company in liquidation must comply with the obligation to distribute according to the size of registered shareholdings, rather than any concept of equitable fairness.

Any directors and/or liquidators of failed feeder funds should pay close attention to this landmark judgment in deciding how they should distribute any remaining value to investors.

Footnotes

 

1 Pearson v Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) (unreported) FSD/27/2013 – 2 September 2016

2 See also "Ranking of Redemption Proceeds in Cayman Liquidation" – 18 August 2016

3 Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) v Pearson [2015 (1) CILR 482]

4 The Court had already found in a previous judgment that the In Specie Subscription was not void for mistake and was binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.

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