Cayman Islands: Weavering And The Preferred Custodian

Plenty of ink has been spilled following the ruling of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal on 18 November 2016 in the Weavering preference case SEB v Conway and Walker. The case is of obvious interest to insolvency experts, but it is also of wider relevance, highlighting the binding nature of a fund's net asset value, and the risks of serving as a custodian or nominee investor for an underlying client. The facts of Weavering are now notorious. In short, an open-ended Cayman Islands investment fund (whose controlling mind was United Kingdom-based investment manager Magnus Peterson, and whose directors were Magnus' brother and father-in law) defrauded its investors by painting a picture of positive growth using worthless swaps with an affiliated company, and causing net asset values to be calculated on fictitious unrealised gains from the swaps.

 The reality was that Weavering was making huge losses through options trading, masked by the swaps and spending significant sums on management and performance fees. Swedish bank SEB (Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken), which was acting as custodian or nominee investor for third parties, redeemed its shares shortly before the fraud was uncovered, and received redemption proceeds based on the fictitious net asset values. Weavering's Cayman Islands liquidators sued SEB for the return of the redemption payments on the basis that they were voidable preferences under the relevant Cayman Islands legislation.

Preference?

The Court of Appeal's decision has attracted much attention because it is a rare example of Cayman Islands or BVI liquidators bringing a successful clawback action. Other recent high-profile clawback attempts, including by the liquidators of the Fairfield Sentry and DD Growth funds, which were also funds brought down by frauds, failed unequivocally.

The requirements of preference claims under Cayman Islands law are considered to be challenging. They include proving cash flow insolvency of the payer at the time of the payment, and a dominant intention on the part of the payer to put the recipient in a better position than he would have been as an unpaid creditor in the subsequent liquidation.

The conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal on these points are of particular interest to insolvency practitioners.

In relation to the requirement for cash flow insolvency at the time of the relevant payment, it was held that the Cayman Islands' cash flow insolvency test could take into account debts that were to fall due in the 'reasonably near future' and did not have to be limited to the debts that were due and payable at the precise time the alleged preferential payment was made.

That conclusion is particularly notable because the Court of Appeal held that the socalled words of futurity, which have appeared in the English cash flow test of insolvency since 1985, but are not in the Cayman Islands test (namely that the company must be unable to pay its debts as they fall due), do not add anything of substance.

According to the Court of Appeal, with or without those words, the court is able to take into account future debts when considering cash flow insolvency. In reaching that decision, the Court of Appeal did not, however, refer to the seminal English case of Re Cheyne Finance (2008), which held to the contrary. Contrary to some views that have been expressed, it is doubtful whether this point represents a real change to the Cayman Islands Court's winding up jurisdiction (which includes the cash flow test of insolvency). Winding up a company which can pay today's debts but will not be able to pay future debts has always been possible – and remains possible – under the court's wide jurisdiction to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.

The finding that Weavering made the payments to SEB with the 'dominant intention to prefer' SEB is perhaps the most unorthodox aspect of the Court of Appeal's decision. In the absence of a cogent explanation for the payments to SEB (for example to ward off threats of litigation), the court appears to have inferred that the dominant intention had been to improve the position of SEB.

SEB intends to appeal to the Privy Council, so these key points are likely to be revisited soon. In the meantime, however, it is doubtful that the Court of Appeal's decision will see a flood of new preference claims brought by Cayman Islands liquidators in the investment funds arena. This is because it is still extremely rare for an investment fund to become technically insolvent, even where it is the subject of formal liquidation proceedings. A fund's constitutional documents contain various safety mechanisms to help prudent and honest directors and managers prevent that eventuality arising. And also because the facts of Weavering itself were extreme – Peterson is currently in jail in the UK as a result of the fraud that was perpetrated.

The net asset value is binding

Investment funds will welcome the Court of Appeal's emphasis on the binding nature of the net asset value struck by Weavering and the importance of commercial certainty in the investment funds marketplace. SEB had sought to argue that Weavering's debts to redeemed investors were not really debts at all because they were based on fictitious net asset values; therefore Weavering could not be said to be cash flow insolvent at the relevant time, and therefore the liquidators could not meet the requirements of a preference. The Court of Appeal firmly rejected the notion that the net asset value struck was not binding, despite the fact that it had been struck on a fictitious basis.

The Court of Appeal placed significant weight on the fact that Weavering's constitutional documents expressed the net asset value to be binding on all persons and to revisit it with the benefit of hindsight would not be a practicable or permissible approach.

The Privy Council had reached the same conclusion in the Fairfield Sentry case in 2014, which concerned a collapsed BVI fund that had innocently invested in a fraudulent Madoffcontrolled vehicle. SEB sought to argue that the position in Fairfield Sentry (where the fraud had taken place within one of the fund's underlying investments) had been different to that in Weavering (where the fraud took place within the fund). The Court of Appeal was not persuaded to draw that distinction emphasising that any other conclusion would be commercially unworkable for investment funds.

The roles and risk of the Custodian

The Court of Appeal's ruling serves as an important reminder of the risks inherent in acting as custodian or nominee investor.

SEB was at pains to stress that it was 'only' a custodian and that the redemption payments it had received from Weavering had been passed on to the underlying investors who had the economic interest in Weavering's performance.

SEB noted that had the liquidators based their clawback claim on the law of mistake, SEB would have had a number of possible equitable defences available to it, including the defence of 'change of position' which could have been invoked by the fact that SEB had passed the redemption proceeds on to the underlying investors and could not now get them back.

SEB argued that that suite of defences was available to it in a preference claim too. That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which found that there was no room for those types of defences in the statutory preference provisions.

It therefore continues to be the case that in a statutory preference claim, the knowledge, intention or position of the recipient is irrelevant. The policy underpinning the preference legislation is to ensure rateable treatment among the general body of unsecured creditors This trumped any unfairness caused by an innocent recipient having to return a redemption payment and then line up with the other unpaid unsecured creditors for a dividend in the liquidation. The Court of Appeal noted that the indemnities SEB had obtained from its underlying clients were now, unfortunately for it, worthless. Through no fault of its own, SEB was left carrying the litigation cost and risk itself as a cost of doing business.

Conclusion

Custodians are of course often dragged into litigation as claimants where the underlying beneficial shareholder wishes to pursue claims against the company or a third party. In those circumstances, custodians are able to think in real time about the business risks they face and discuss them with the underlying investor.

From a reputational perspective, are they willing to lend their names to a lawsuit? Are they comfortable authorising the underlying beneficial investor to swear evidence and file other court documents on their behalf and in their name, and will the authorisation process be a one off process or continuous? Are they being appropriately remunerated and protected from potential liability by the underlying investor? If any concerns cannot be addressed with the underlying investor, there is usually time to make alternative arrangements, such as transferring the shares to another custodian or to the underlying investor to hold directly.

But this type of real time risk management cannot easily be undertaken to mitigate the risk of preference claims. As SEB found out, having contractual indemnity rights against the underlying investor does not eliminate the custodian's risk because preference claims are often brought many months, if not years, after the relevant payment has been made by which time the underlying investor may not have the means to satisfy a call on the indemnity, or may itself have been wound up.

So in conclusion, the Weavering clawback case is instructive on many different fronts: a rare and somewhat unorthodox clawback success for liquidators; a further emphasis on the binding nature of an investment fund's net asset value; and an important reminder about the perils of serving as custodian. It remains to be seen what the Privy Council will have to say about these issues.

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