Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Why did the High Court decide to stay proceedings brought by Cayman liquidators in relation to the avoidance of s 127 property dispositions?
Akers v Samba Financial Group  EWHC 540 (Ch),  All ER (D) 02 (Mar) The Companies Court considered an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132, Pt 11 (CPR) by the defendant financial group (Samba Financial Group) (Samba). The proceedings sought a declaration under IA 1986, s 127 that the transfer of shares in five Saudi Arabian companies was a void disposition of Saad Investments Company Limited's (SICL's) property. The claim was made by the joint liquidators of SICL (a Cayman Islands company). In granting the stay, the court decided that the courts of Saudi Arabia were clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum.
What is the significance of this case?
The case gives an interesting overview of which law governs:
What did the court decide?
Sir Terence Etheron J decided that:
What were the key dates in this case?
The relevant chronology was:
◦ Cayman joint liquidators as foreign representatives, and
◦ Cayman insolvency proceedings as foreign main proceedings
What were the key jurisdictional facts?
SICL incorporated in Cayman Islands
SICL entered liquidation in Cayman Islands
Disputed share transfer relates to shares in five Saudi Arabian companies (under seven transactions)
Four of the share transfer transactions contained choices of Saudi Arabian law or Bahraini law
Transferor of disputed shares—Mr Al-Sanea is a citizen, domiciled and ordinarily resident in Saudi Arabia
Transferee of disputed shares—Samba is incorporated and registered on the Saudi Arabian stock exchange, carrying on business as an international bank in Saudi Arabia
SICL's ultimate beneficial owner and one of its directors and chair of the board (Mr Al-Sanea) is a Saudi resident
One of Samba's directors (Mr Al-Sanea) is a Saudi resident
England and Wales:
$60m facility agreement between SICL and Samba governed by English law with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts
$2.815bn revolving facility agreement between bank syndicate and SICL governed by English law with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
The effect of the disputed share transfer (if the shares constituted property of SICL) was to give Samba priority over other creditors of SICL to the extent of their value (alleged to be around $318m).
The joint liquidators decided to bring proceedings in England, rather than the Cayman Islands, because Samba had no presence there and they believed that Samba would refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands--meaning a Cayman judgment would be difficult to enforce. The UNCITRAL Model Law has not been enacted in Saudi Arabia.
What factors were relevant to the decision to stay proceedings?
Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd  AC 460,  3 All ER 843 The court applied the principles in Spiliada in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings--proceedings will be stayed if there is another more appropriate forum, even where, as in the present case, the court's jurisdiction has been invoked by the claimant as of right. However, it will only stay proceedings if certain conditions are satisfied and will ask the following questions:
Whether there is a more appropriate forum
In determining that issue, the court will consider with which forum the issues in the proceedings have the most real or substantial connection, including:
If the court considers that there is no other forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily refuse a stay.
Whether justice requires that the proceedings continue in England
If the court is satisfied that there is another forum which is clearly more appropriate, then the court will ordinarily order a stay unless the claimant can satisfy the court that justice requires that the proceedings continue in England because--for example, it is established objectively and by cogent evidence that justice will not be done in that other forum. Ultimately, the question for the court is whether it is more suitable that the case should be tried in England having regard to the interests of all the parties and ends of justice.
After considering the additional matters below, the court decided that proceedings would be stayed on the ground that the courts of Saudi Arabia were clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum.
Which law governs this dispute?
The purpose of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (enacted in Great Britain by the CBIR) is to enable a foreign office holder to use British insolvency law to obtain the same relief as if the insolvency was commenced in England (see CBIR, reg 3(1) and CBIR, arts 20(1)(c), 20 (2)). The effect of those provisions is to enable the foreign representative to take advantage of IA 1986, s 127 (for further details on IA 1986, s 127, see Practice Note Restrictions on dispositions of property and for UNCITRAL, see Practice Notes: When does UNCITRAL (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) apply and what are the effects? and Effects when the UNCITRAL Model Law (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) applies).
Accordingly, any disposition of SICL's property made after, at the latest, the date of recognition of the foreign proceedings under the CBIR on 20 August 2009 was void under IA 1986, s 127. The disputed share transfer was made after that date.
The critical issue is whether or not, applying the relevant law, SICL had any property interest in the disputed shares at the date of the transfer. While Saudi law does not recognise trusts, it recognises an 'amaana', an arrangement similar to bailment. It was common ground that Saudi law did not recognise a category of trust, like the common law trust, in which there was a separation of the legal and equitable interests.
As regards which law governs whether or not, at the date of the disputed share transfer, SICL had a proprietary interest in the shares:
The court decided that the governing law of the trusts created by the seven transactions could not be resolved by reference to the Convention, art 6 (a trust shall be governed by the law chosen by the settlor, but if the chosen law doesn't provide for trusts, art 7 shall apply) because:
Applying the Convention, art 7, in order to ascertain the law with which a trust is most closely connected with, the court must consider the place of administration of the trust designated by the settlor, the situs of the trust assets, the place of residence or business of the trustee, the objects of the trust and the places where they are to be fulfilled. In this case, the court decided:
Those matters taken together overwhelmingly indicated that the closest connection of the seven transactions for the purposes of the Convention, art 7 was with the law of Saudi Arabia and not the law of the Cayman Islands (see paras - of the judgment).
VTB Capital v Nutritek International  UKSC 5,  2 AC 337 . The governing law is always an important factor in forum challenges because it is generally preferable, all other things being equal, that a case should be tried in the country whose law applies (see VTB Capital v Nutritek International, at para ). In the present case it is decisive. It is common ground that, if the law of Saudi Arabia governs the seven transactions, the claim in the present proceedings pursuant to IA 1986, s127 will fail because SICL will not have had a property interest in the shares at the relevant date. Once it was decided that the law of Saudi Arabia or the law of Bahrain governs the trusts, the joint liquidators accepted their IA 1986, s 127 claim fails on two counts:
What does this mean for practitioners?
This case is a warning to foreign insolvency practitioners that even though they may be successful in obtaining recognition in the UK as foreign representatives under the CBIR, the UK courts will not always apply UK provisions and reliefs--especially if there is a closer connection to another country.
For further details, see Lexis R&I PSL Practice Notes: Restrictions on dispositions of property, When does UNCITRAL (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) apply and what are the effects? and Effects when the UNCITRAL Model Law (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) applies.
Kathy Stones, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Restructuring & Insolvency team.
0330 161 1234