Cayman Grand Court orders liquidations of failed crypto companies to be subject to Court supervision on grounds of improved efficacy, expedition and economy

Published: 8 Apr 2025
Type: Insight

On 3 April 2025, the Grand Court ordered that the voluntary liquidations of two entities within the failed Axia Group, AXIA Network Foundation (ANF) and ANF MergeCo Ltd (MergeCo), be continued under its supervision pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, on the basis that official liquidations under court supervision will facilitate a more effective, economic or expeditious liquidation of the AXIA Entities, in the interests of their stakeholders.[1]

In its ex tempore ruling, the Court applied settled Cayman authority which confirms that the jurisdictional thresholds for obtaining supervision orders under s.131(b) of the Act are onerous, and it provided helpful guidance as to the factors it will take into account in conducting the evaluative process which that section requires.

The decision particularly demonstrates the desirability and utility of official court-supervised liquidation processes for the efficient and effective conduct of complex cross-border insolvency matters, not least in the digital asset space, a rapidly developing area of law and legal practice.

[1] In the Matter of AXIA Network Foundation (in Voluntary Liquidation) and In the Matter of ANF MergeCo Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) [2025] CIGC (FSD) 27


From crypto start-up to multijurisdictional group to liquidation

By way of background, the AXIA project was founded in Ontario in early 2018 for the purpose of creating and developing a cryptocurrency token.  Its corporate structure was moved offshore in 2019, and ultimately comprised a substantial number of entities in no less than 27 jurisdictions, whilst having raised investments totalling around USD 41 million globally from approximately 9,500 token holders.

The Group began facing regulatory challenges around mid-2020, with the Ontario Securities Commission investigating its promotion and sale of the AXIA Coin.  Despite its efforts to overcome regulatory concerns, including seeking a “fresh start” through the incorporation of ANF in April 2022, it was forced to suspend the trading of its AXIA Coin shortly thereafter, in October 2022, and appointed independent directors to assume control of ANF the following month – who in turn appointed Alvarez & Marsal as independent financial and restructuring advisors.

Thereafter, a strategy was developed for the wind-down of the AXIA Group, with the Cayman Islands being
the preferred jurisdiction, given its statutory merger regime and sophisticated regime for corporate liquidations.  As part of the wind-down process, MergeCo was incorporated, and several AXIA Group entities merged into it, in order to facilitate their liquidation within a single jurisdiction.

In the course of 2024, both MergeCo and ANF were then placed into voluntary liquidation, and their joint voluntary liquidators (JVLs) subsequently filed petitions to bring their voluntary liquidations under the supervision of the Grand Court pursuant to s.131(b) of the Act (on the basis noted above).  The JVLs also simultaneously applied for sanction, if appointed as joint official liquidators (JOLs), to seek recognition of the liquidations in the USA, pursuant to Chapter 15 of Title 11 of the United States Code, to address proceedings being pursued in the Wyoming courts against two former AXIA Group companies that had been dissolved, with their assets and liabilities having been assumed by ANF and MergeCo, respectively.

The Court’s evaluative process

As the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal held in Re Asia Private Credit Fund,[2] s.131(b) of the Companies Act provides jurisdictional thresholds which an applicant must overcome before a supervision order can be made, namely that there is the immediate potential that an official court-supervised liquidation will facilitate a more effective, economic or expeditious liquidation of the relevant entity, in the interests of its stakeholders.

In his ex tempore ruling, Justice Doyle applied that decision and held that the jurisdictional thresholds had been overcome for the following reasons, such that it was appropriate to make supervision orders in respect of each of ANF and MergeCo:

  1. The multijurisdictional issues relating to the status of cryptocurrency coin holders which may arise.
  1. The confidence in the Cayman liquidation process which the appointment of official liquidators (with duties to the Court) should provide to stakeholders. 
  1. The likelihood that issues of some complexity will arise in the course of the liquidations (including regarding proofs of debt and distributions) which make independent judicial oversight desirable. 
  1. The investigative powers afforded to official liquidators and the various provisions of the liquidation regime should facilitate more effective liquidations for stakeholders as a whole.
  1. The Supervision Orders will trigger a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 97 of the Companies Act.
  1. Judicial supervision may also facilitate the more economic liquidations of the companies and it should help to save costs by reducing the likelihood and possible magnitude of any dispute with the stakeholders.
  1. As Field JA observed in Re Asia Private Credit Fund, the investigative and other powers of an official liquidator are significantly greater than the abilities of a voluntary liquidator.
  1. The JOLs, with the sanction of the court, may file a Chapter 15 petition for recognition to address the Wyoming Proceedings; and any further applications for recognition and assistance which may be necessary in other relevant jurisdictions.

Having made the supervision orders, Justice Doyle then proceeded to grant the applications for sanction to file Chapter 15 petitions in the US Bankruptcy Court, seeking the recognition of the official liquidations of each of ANF and MergeCo as foreign main proceedings.

The Appleby team which made the supervision and sanction applications comprised Andrew Jackson (Partner and lead advocate), and Charlotte Walker (Senior Associate), as counsel to Christopher Kennedy and Alexander Lawson of A&M, then as JVLs (now JOLs) of ANF and MergeCo.

[2] [2020] 1 CILR 134

Key Contacts
Share
More publications
Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.