Jones J
1 IN THE GRAND COURT 2 FINANCIAL SERVICES 3 4 Before The Hon Mr Ju In Chambers on 16th 5 6 7 IN THE MATTER OF TH AND 8 OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS DIVISION Cause No. Justice Andrew J.Jones QC October 2014 E COMPANIES LAW (2013 REVISION) COMPUTER HOLDINGS LIMITED 63 of 2014 (AU) 11 Appearances: For the 12 For the 13 14 15 1. Introduction 16 This is an appli- 17 by a summons 19 amounts to and 20 the Petitioner, 21 stakeholders w/ 22 parties action p 23 Petitioner's of 24 proceedings" a 25 Petitioner - Mr. Alan Turner and Ms Charlotte Hoffman of ST Company and Mertal Overseas Ltd - Mr. Paul Murphy of St REASONS ation by the Company and its parent company, Mertal Ovsdated 10 October 2014 for (a) leave to adduce further affidavit to vary the Order made on 3 September 2014 which is an insolvent company in liquidation, to disclose any funding this proceeding, the Maltese liquidation proceedings in the Maltese court and the identity of anyone vicial liquidator "with instructions and/or assistance and (c) an order for security for costs in the sum of US$290.00 arners arts orseas Ltd ("Mertal"), (b) orders requiring (a) evidence, which (i) the identity of the cepter and an inter holder provided the to undertake these
26 2. Further eviden- 27 28 The Company's 29 the Service of a 30 On 28 August 2 31 asserted for the 32 explained by re- 33 This represents 34 an order made 35 Azevedo's 2nd 36 the timetable, b any further evid- e
1 been signed by 2 which are surpr 3 Company's de 4 agreements an 5 12 September 6 Azevedo's 3rd 7 circumstances 8 will seek to de 9 original affidav 10 11 3. Counsel for the 12 clients are face Mr Krasnov and Ms Terekhova but they were not mentioning having regard to the fact that they are now relied upon. Inevitably, the Petitioner is suspicious about the ID for that reason I made an order that the originals be prod. The Company failed to comply with this Order for re Affidavit. The Company's witnesses will be cross-am which these agreements were executed and it may well aw an adverse inference from the fact that they were at Mr Krasnov and Ms Terekhova. Company/Merta now seeks leave to adduce new evidenced with a new allegation of fraud. I regard this as a contriv- 13 ed in their affidavits n as a key part of the authenticity of these iced for inspection by reasons set out in Mr axmined about the be that the Petitioner not mentioned in the on the basis that his ed argument which is 13 wholly lacking 14 of 14 October 15 should have been 16 have been pat- 17 agreements in 18 that it would be 19 and the circum- 20 address this su- 21 allowing the Co 22 these reasons to 23 24 4. Security for co 25 matter of poli- 26 condition of pa- 27 considerations 28 Court has direc- 29 shareholders an merit. The only explanation of the new evidence is contro14 (at pages 3 and 4). It seems to me that it is all eviden produced and served at the same time as Mr Azevedo's ID. I am obviously obviou5 to counsel that the failure to refer to the sub- Company's original evidence would lead to adverse con- important to explain in detail the commercial rationale stances in which they were executed. Mr Azevedo's 2nd object at length and I can see no justification for extending imparty/Merta another yet another opportunity to supplement the application contained in paragraph 1 of the Summons is its - The Insolvency Rules Committee, of which I am chairman that creditors should not be required to put up securities or a winding up petition on grounds of insolvency shall apply to contributory's petitions, especially in cases that the petition proceed as an inter partes proceeding. petitioners and other shareholders as respondents. In the ence which could and 29" Affidavit. it should only agent and credit merit, with the result for these agreements Affidavit does in fact at the timetable again ent its evidence. For dismissed. man, has decided as a by for costs as a pre- maturely, different circumstances where the between one or more is type of case it was 30 applicable that 31 those applicab- 32 24 is silent on 33 that the Court 34 followed this de- 35 different from 36 itself was treat- 37 in Dyrxnet (and 38 been published 39 creditor to put 40 the judgment 41 upon which the 42
1 5. However, ass 2 security for c 3 reasons. First 4 are treated e 5 require a pet 6 Secondly, if th 7 up security fo 8 liquidity is b 9 its stakeholder 10 be appropria 11 the costs of c lling for the sake of argument that I do have an interests against a petitioning creditor, I would dismiss this application, it is a fundamental policy of the Cayman Islands insolvency. There is no preference for local creditors. It would be doing creditor to put up security for costs merely because that it would also be wrong in principle to require a pet to costs merely because it is itself an insolvent company in lizing funded by the stakeholders and/or may be said to be a 12 Petitioner has already made out a prima facie case, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate for us to require that it put up security at this very late stage – dealing with the Company’s new defence. Fourthly, the Peti t jurisdiction to order ation for the following y law that all creditors is wrong in principle to e it is a foreign entity. tioning creditor to put llation whose official vating in the interests of failure case, on a fully illion and it would not effect, as security for another has made out a 13 case for the a 14 the Company. 15 Court’s order. 16 particularly the 17 and officers in 18 dismissed, I an 19 for costs sho 20 been conduct 21 application co 22 23 6. It follows that 24 Murphy invite 25 26 7. As for the cost 27 costs in any 28 September 20 29 Petitioners’ co- 30 ppointment of provisional liquidators for reasons given on 17 July 2014. They have failed to co-operate with the law, have failed to hand over all of the Company’s books and have failed to provide any statements of affairs. Finally, I stipulate that the Petitioner may have legitimate grounds for old be made having regard to the manner in which the Cd. Even assuming that jurisdiction exists, for these reasons the application in paragraph 5 of the Summons should in the to make no orders in respect of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Summons, I shall order that the Company and Merewith and (as already provided for in paragraph 7 of this the Petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for an orders of and occasioned by this Summons be met only and if August 2014. Fifty, requirements of the visional liquidators. In order if the petition is arguing that no order company’s defence has s, I would dismiss the also be dismissed. Mr of the Summons. at the Petitioners’ he Order made on 3 severally by identified 30 third parties or 31 DATED this 16th day of 32 33 34 35 36 37 The Hon. Mr. Justice A 38 JUDGE OF THE GRAND