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
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.