Category Archives: Client Advisories

Weavering Preference Claims Upheld by Privy Council

14 Aug 2019

On 29 July 2019, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & Shakespeare (as joint official liquidators of Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd) (Cayman Islands) [2019] UKPC 36. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the Cayman Islands Grand Court and Court of Appeal in finding that certain redemption payments received by Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) (“SEB”) from Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd (the “Company”) shortly prior to the Company’s liquidation constituted voidable preferences and requiring SEB to repay those amounts to the Company’s joint official liquidators (“JOLs”).


Campbells successfully acts for the Defendants in the matter of Steven Goodman v Dawn Cummings and DMS Governance Ltd.

12 Jul 2019

In a Judgment delivered on 2 July 2019, the Grand Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to amend his pleading and granted summary judgment in favour of DMS, thus dismissing the entire action in favour of the Defendants without a substantive trial. This recent judgment is concerned with the circumstances in which a management company offering directorship services can become vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an employee, and also provides a helpful reminder about the threshold for proving “wilful neglect or default” and for obtaining summary judgment and strike out.


Amendments to the Securities Investment Business Law (2019 Revision)

21 Jun 2019

The SIB Amendment includes a number of amendments to the Securities Investment Business Law (2019 Revision) (SIBL) in response to the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force’s evaluation of Cayman’s anti-money laundering framework and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority’s (CIMA) review of the Excluded Person regime under SIBL.
The amendments will affect persons who are currently registered with CIMA as Excluded Persons under SIBL and broadens the scope of the regulatory and supervisory framework for persons conducting securities investment business.


Primeo Fund v HSBC: Cayman Islands Court of Appeal dismisses Primeo’s appeal

13 Jun 2019

In a judgment delivered on 13 June 2019, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (“CICA”) dismissed the appeal by Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) (“Primeo”), a Madoff feeder fund, against the 2017 judgment of the Grand Court which had dismissed Primeo’s claims valued in excess of US $2 billion against its administrator and custodian, Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd (“BBCL”) and HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) S.A. (“HSSL”).[1] The CICA’s judgment, which runs to 184 pages, addresses numerous issues that will be of interest to funds industry participants.


Economic Substance Requirements in the British Virgin Islands

28 May 2019

In response to the OECD’s global Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) initiative and EU Code of Conduct Group substance requirements modelled on BEPS Action 5, the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) has enacted the Economic Substance (Companies and Limited Partnerships) Act, 2018 (the “ES Law”). Similar legislation has been introduced in numerous jurisdictions, including the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands. We note that a draft Economic Substance Code to accompany the ES Law was issued on 23 April 2019 by the British Virgin Islands International Tax Authority (“ITA”)  and it is expected that following a period of public consultation a final Economic Substance Code will be published shortly. 


Update from the BVI Court: free-standing freezing orders and foreign defendants

27 May 2019

Convoy Collateral Limited v (1) Broad Idea International Limited (2) Cho Kwai Chee

In a decision handed down on 17 April 2019, the BVI Commercial Court has given guidance on the scope of its jurisdiction to grant freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings (the so-called Black Swan jurisdiction named after the leading case of Black Swan Investment ISA v Harvest View Limited decided in 2009). In an important decision, Adderley J has held that the BVI Court does not have power to grant a free-standing injunction in aid of foreign proceedings for service outside the jurisdiction on a person who is not resident in the jurisdiction or otherwise subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the BVI Court, notwithstanding the fact that they had considerable assets in the BVI.


BVI Commercial Court Decision Serves as Bold Reminder of Duties of Full and Frank Disclosure on Ex Parte Applications

22 May 2019

On 9 May 2019, The Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Jack QC (Ag) delivered an oral Judgment in BVI proceedings in the Abyzov/Vekselberg-related litigation. Campbells acts for an independent Cypriot group of parties previously joined as defendants to the Third Ancillary Claim. One of Campbells’ clients, ABC Grandeservus Limited (“ABC”) applied seeking to set aside an Order purportedly made and steps taken by Emmerson International Corporation (“Emmerson”) as a result of an ex parte hearing and Order on 31 December 2018 (the “New Year’s Eve Application”).


Economic Substance Requirements in the Cayman Islands

02 Apr 2019

As a result of the OECD’S global Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) initiative and the EU Code of Conduct Group substance requirements modelled on BEPS Action 5, the Cayman Islands has enacted The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law, 2018 (the “ES Law”) and issued related Regulations and Guidance Notes.  Similar legislation has been introduced in numerous jurisdictions, including the Channel Islands and the British Virgin Islands.


Cayman Grand Court refuses to enforce foreign arbitral award in favour of Brazilian airline

25 Mar 2019

The 19 February 2019 judgment of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in VRG Linhas Aereas S.A. v Matlin Patterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II L.P. & Ors is a rare example of the Grand Court refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award, here on the grounds that the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement pursuant to which the award was rendered and that, even if they were, the award went beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement such that its enforcement would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and public policy.