In the Matter of Aubit International

Published: 2 Nov 2023

After dismissing Aubit International’s (the Company’s) petition to appoint restructuring officers, on 19 October 2023, the Honourable Justice Doyle made orders winding up the Company (In the Matter of Aubit International (Unreported, FSD 271 of 2023 (DDJ), 19 October 2023)).

Background

The Petitioners were retail investors who had suffered losses from utilising an online cryptocurrency platform operated by the Company’s major creditor, Freeway.

On 11 September 2023, the Petitioners filed a winding up petition on the grounds that: (a) the Company was unable to pay its debts; and (b) it was just and equitable that the Company be wound up, due to the need for an independent investigation into the affairs of the Company.

Prior to the filing of the winding up petition, the Company petitioned for the appointment of restructuring officers (RO Petition) on the grounds that:

it was unable to pay its debts, as a result of Ardu Prime Investment Services SA (Ardu Prime) refusing to release US$60.4 million held in the Company’s brokerage accounts;
there was a need to investigate the causes of any and all losses on the Company’s brokerage accounts at Ardu Prime;
it intended to present a restructuring proposal to its creditors.

On 6 September 2023, Justice Doyle dismissed the RO petition for the reasons set out in his 4 October 2023 judgment and as discussed in our recent article “Intention Matters In The Matter Of Aubit International”.

Shortly thereafter, Justice Doyle granted the winding up orders.

Determination

On the issue of standing, Doyle J affirmed that a contingent claim could include a claim for unliquidated damages in tort in the context of an insolvency.[1] In this case, two of the Petitioners had commenced proceedings against the Company in the US (US Proceedings) seeking compensatory damages, including for various alleged torts committed by the Company. Accordingly, Doyle J regarded the claims of the First and Second Petitioners against the Company to be contingent debts.[2] In arriving at that decision, Doyle J rejected the Company’s submission that the Petitioners’ claims were against Freeway rather than the Company. Justice Doyle distinguished Shinsun Holdings (Unreported, FSD 192 of 2022 (DDJ), 21 April 2023), in which he found that the petitioner lacked standing as a contingent creditor, as the evidence in that case established no obligation upon the company to the petitioner whether in contract, tort, equity or otherwise. Our analysis of that decision can be found here.

In concluding that the Company was unable to pay its debts, Doyle J was heavily influenced by the Company’s prior admission of insolvency in its failed RO petition. Indeed, Doyle J found the Company’s submission that it was now able to pay its debt as a result of the involvement of White Knight and the Freeway debt deferral to be ‘as unattractive as it is unpersuasive’[3], given the Company had recently stressed and relied on its inability to pay its debt in the RO Petition.

Doyle J was also persuaded to appoint JOLs on a just and equitable basis for the purposes of undertaking an independent investigation into the affairs of the Company. Again, he took into account the Company’s prior submissions made in the context of its RO petition, noting “In the In RO proceedings, the Company wisely and openly accepted, that there should be an independent investigation into the Company’s losses and “to investigate generally the business, dealings, finances and affairs of the Company, and to analyse the document and data as recovered as part of such investigation”’.[4]

It followed from the Company’s submission during the hearing of its RO petition, that the choice between a winding up order or a restructuring was binary,[5] that if the restructuring failed, a winding up was inevitable in most cases. If a company is unable to pay its debts and fails to demonstrate that it intends to present a credible restructuring proposal, then it is ripe to be wound up. Indeed, the arguments advanced by a company in a failed RO petition may come to bite in a winding up proceeding. Therefore, a company should only petition to appoint restructuring officers if it is confident that it can adduce credible evidence of a rational restructuring proposal with reasonable prospects of success, at the risk of presenting evidence/submissions which could later be used against it to support a winding up order. This downside risk for a Company rolling the dice on a formal restructuring may act as a welcome check against insolvent companies from bringing unmeritorious RO petitions.

[1] [26]
[2] Doyle J did not consider it necessary to rule on the standing of the Third Petitioner, who had not filed any formal proceedings but nonetheless had potential claims against the Company.
[3] [30]
[4] At [32]
[5] At [4]

More publications

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.

Simon Raftopoulos, Menelik Miller, Miriam Smyth, Maree Martin, Martin Byers

16 Feb 2026

Preparing for and Managing a CIMA Onsite Inspection

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is empowered, under the Monetary Authority Act and certain other regulatory laws, to inspect regulated financial service providers (FSP) in the Cayman Islands such as banks, trust companies, administrators, investment managers and virtual asset service providers for compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. CIMA routinely conducts onsite inspections of such regulated entities – which can be full-scope (involving a review of all areas of a regulated entity's business operations) or thematically focused on specific areas such as corporate governance and/or internal controls, policies and procedures pertaining to AML/CFT/CPF. With the breadth and number of onsite inspections carried out by CIMA having increased through 2024 and 2025 we consider, in this briefing: (i) the CIMA onsite inspection process; (ii) the latest feedback available from CIMA in respect of inspections conducted to date; and (iii) some frequently asked questions in relation to CIMA onsite inspections.

Martin Byers, Simon Raftopoulos, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin, Menelik Miller

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution

16 Feb 2026

Injunctive Relief in Another Form? Cayman Court's Jurisdiction to Appoint JPLs Despite Ongoing Arbitration

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [link],[1] the Grand Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators notwithstanding the fact that the company’s shareholders are engaged in an arbitration over its affairs, as mandated by a binding arbitration agreement. This article considers the decision and its implications.

David Lee, Will Porter

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

11 Feb 2026

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

David Lee, Zuhair Farouki

5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Andrew Jackson, Charlotte Walker

4 Feb 2026

The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets. The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information. For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.

Matt Mulry, Martin Byers, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin

27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

Martin Byers, Simon Raftopoulos, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Maree Martin

16 Jan 2026

Compulsory ADR in Cayman: Court Confirms It Has Teeth But Declines to Bite

David Lee, Zuhair Farouki

15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.