Decision in Re Harbinger Class PE holdings (Cayman) Ltd – a step forward for open-ended funds?

Published: 11 Nov 2015

The recent decision in Re Harbinger Class PE Holdings (Cayman) Ltd confirms that the traditional “impossibility” test for loss of substratum will be applied in the context of a Cayman Islands company which is not an open-ended mutual fund.

The decision appears, at first glance, to depart from earlier Cayman Islands authorities which deal with the question of what loss of substratum entails in the context of an open-ended mutual fund. Uncertainty remains, however, about the test for loss of substratum of a Cayman Islands open-ended fund, and this decision could be a step toward the traditional test for loss of substratum also being applied in that context.

HARBINGER Proceedings

On 14 May 2015, a petition was presented by “NYROY/RBC Acct# 1583 pledged to Royal Bank of Canada” (the Petitioner) for the winding up of Harbinger Class PE Holdings (Cayman) Ltd (the Company) and the appointment of official liquidators. The Petitioner was a contributory of the Company, holding a 0.2% interest. The winding up was sought pursuant to section 92(e) of the Companies Law (2013 Revision) on the ground that it was “just and equitable” to wind up the Company as there had been a loss of substratum.

The Company was incorporated on 16 December 2008 as a subsidiary of Harbinger Capital Partners Offshore Fund 1 Ltd (the Offshore Fund). The Offshore Fund had been incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 2001 and operated as a feeder fund to Harbinger Capital Partners Masters Fund 1 Limited (the Master Fund). In 2008, the Offshore Fund was faced with substantial redemption requests from its investors which it, and in turn the Master Fund, lacked the liquidity to meet; the Company was therefore formed in order to restructure the illiquid investments which were valued at US$2.4 billion. The Master Fund issued a new class of shares, Class PE Shares, to which it allocated certain private equity-type and other illiquid investments called the “Private Portfolio”. The Class PE Shares were issued by the Master Fund to the Offshore Fund and were ultimately contributed to the Company; participating shares in the Company were then issued to redeeming shareholders in the Offshore Fund as partial in-kind redemption proceeds.

The Petitioner filed detailed evidence on the developments in relation to the Private Portfolio, which was central to the Petitioner’s case. It was alleged that there had been a loss of substratum of the Company on the basis that, contrary to the objective set out in the Supplement to the Confidential Offering Memorandum issued to investors in December 2008 that all commercially reasonable efforts would be made to dispose of or otherwise realise the assets of the Private Portfolio by the end of 2010, proceeds of realisation had in fact been reinvested in largely illiquid assets. The Petitioner put forward a catalogue of complaints alleging a misuse of the Private Portfolio, with the result that the Company was allegedly no longer doing what it was formed to do.

The Company defended the petition on the basis that the purpose of the Company was limited to holding the Class PE Shares, receiving through the redemption of those shares the net cash flow from the realisation of the assets in the Private Portfolio or income attributable to those assets, and distributing such monies to the shareholders of the Company: as distinct from the Master Fund, it was not part of the purpose of the Company to manage and realise the underlying assets of the Private Portfolio. The Company maintained that there had been no loss of substratum, as the Company had fulfilled and continued to fulfil its purpose. The Company also refuted that there had been any mismanagement by the Master Fund and adduced evidence from the Independent Monitor of the Investment Management in support of its position.

The decision

Dismissing the petition, Justice Clifford, following the traditional approach applied by the English Courts¹, held that the correct test in determining whether there has been a loss of substratum is whether it has become impossible for the company to achieve the purpose for which it was formed. Justice Clifford expressly distinguished the Cayman Islands decision of In the Matter of Belmont Asset Based Lending Limited², in which Justice Jones held that it is just and equitable to make a winding up of an open-ended corporate mutual fund in circumstances where “it has become impractical, if not actually impossible, to carry on its investment business in accordance with the reasonable expectations of its participating shareholders, based upon representations contained in its offering document”³ and the line of Cayman Islands authorities which have followed this decision⁴, on the basis that the Company is not, and has never been, an open-ended corporate mutual fund.

Justice Clifford further held that the question of impossibility must be determined by ascertaining the principal or main objects of the company and then deciding whether it has become impossible for the company to attain those objects; the Court is required to look beyond a wholly general objects clause in the company’s memorandum of association, to ascertain, on the particular evidence, the main object of the company in line with the reasonable expectation of its participating shareholders.

Applying the above to the facts of the case, Justice Clifford held that it was clearly established that the main purpose or object for which the Company was established was limited to holding the Class PE Shares and receiving the net cash flow from the realisation of the assets in the Private Portfolio, for onward payment to the Company’s shareholders, and that the evidence demonstrated that the Company had fulfilled its purpose and continues to do so. The Judge also dismissed the relevance of the complaints in relation to the alleged mismanagement of the Private Portfolio on the basis that there had been a fundamental misconception that it was the Company’s purpose to realise the Private Portfolio, when this was in fact the responsibility of the Master Fund.

Justice Clifford held that there was therefore no jurisdiction to make a winding up order, but commented that, in any event, the factors relevant to whether or not the Court should exercise its discretion pointed against there being a winding up: the petition had very little support from other contributories and it was difficult to see how the appointment of an independent liquidator would have served any useful purpose and would indeed carry the risk of being detrimental to the interests of the shareholders.

Conclusion

The decision of Re Harbinger confirms that the traditional “impossibility” test for loss of substratum will be applied in the context of a Cayman Islands company which is not an open-ended mutual fund. There remains some uncertainty about the test for loss of substratum of a Cayman Islands open-ended fund, however, in the writers’ view, this decision could be a step toward the traditional test for loss of substratum also being applied in that context. Petitions alleging collapse of substratum are continuing to be presented to the Cayman Islands Court in respect of open-ended funds and it should therefore only be a matter of time before further clarification is received on this question.

¹ English authorities referenced in the judgment include In re Suburban Hotel (1867) LR 2 Ch App 737, In re Diamond Fuel Company (1879) 13 Ch D 400, In re Haven Gold Mining Company (1882) 20 Ch D 151, In re German Date Coffee Company (1882) 20 Ch D 169 and Re Kitson & Co Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 435. The Courts of the BVI have followed the traditional approach of the English Courts: Aris Multi-Strategy Lending Fund Ltd v Quantek Opportunity Fund Ltd (Judgment 15 December 2010)

² [2010] 1 CILR 83

³ [2010] 1 CILR 83 at page 89

⁴ In the Matter of Freerider Limited [2010] CILR 486; In the Matter of Wyser-Pratte Eurovalue Fund Ltd [2010] CILR 194 and In the Matter of Heriot African Trade Finance Fund Limited [2011] 1 CILR 1

More publications

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring

13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Alan Bercow, William Spence

7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

Martin Byers, Maree Martin, Miriam Smyth, Menelik Miller

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

5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

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.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

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.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

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.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

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.

Susan Fallan, Daniel Coelho, Hannah Oh

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring-562x340

14 Jul 2026

Directors Cannot Delay Shareholder Votes: Cayman Court Limits Postponement Powers

Eliot Simpson, Ray Leung, Steven Yuen

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.