Palladyne International Asset Management (PIAM) brought claims against three Cayman Islands investment funds (the Upper Brook Funds), whose assets were frozen under the Order, and their proper directors. PIAM’s primary case was that the term “use”, when properly interpreted, is wide enough, when it relates to “funds” which are shares in a Cayman company, to cover the exercise of voting rights to appoint and/or remove directors of that company.

In the decision of PIAM v Upper Brook (A) Ltd & Ors handed down today, Justice Segal has held that the prohibition on “use” of funds (in this case, shares) does not extend to cover the exercise of voting rights by a shareholder.

If PIAM’s wide interpretation had been found to be correct, this would have had significant implications for the corporate governance of companies whose assets are frozen by international sanctions and would have led to perverse outcomes. If correct, a shareholder of a company would be unable to exercise any of the rights attaching to that share, without first obtaining a sanctions licence. This would have resulted in an unworkable and oppressive sanctions regime, requiring a licence to be obtained for every matter of corporate governance, however mundane, such as changing the name of the company.

The Upper Brook Funds successfully argued that PIAM’s interpretation of the prohibition on “use” of shares would have been contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of the legislation and inconsistent with the object and purpose of the asset freeze. The aim of the sanctions regime was to prohibit the dealing with (including “use of”) funds as financial assets. In the context of a share, this means buying it, selling it, trading in relation to it, or raising money using it as security; the prohibition is not concerned with the exercise of voting rights attached to and inherent in the ownership of the shares.

In providing helpful clarification on the prohibition of “use” of funds, Justice Segal made the following points:

1. The term “use” of the funds should be construed having regard to the language used in Article 10(4) of the Order as a whole, and the purpose of the UN sanctions regime, which was intended to preserve the assets intact, so that they can eventually be returned to the Libyan people. The asset freeze was designed to prevent any action being taken which would make the asset (in this case, the shares) less valuable.

2. The definitions of “funds” (as “financial assets and benefits of every kind”) and “to deal with” in Article 10(4) made clear that the sanctions legislation was concerned with the “use” of the share in its character as a financial asset. Use of the funds must be taken as referring to an activity in which the funds are employed as cash/money or liquid assets; such activity is likely to involve a financial return being generated, or affect the value of the funds.

3. PIAM’s wide interpretation of “use” would significantly extend the scope of the asset freeze (as established by other prohibitions) and go beyond what is necessary to achieve the purpose of the freeze. Clear and explicit language would have been needed to justify this interpretation, particularly given the serious consequences of a breach. Furthermore, if it had been intended that the UN Sanctions Committee would review the suitability of proposed new directors, the UN resolutions would have said so and the Order would have made provision for this in clear terms.

Justice Segal also rejected PIAM’s alternative argument that the exercise of voting rights by the shareholders to remove and/or appoint new directors made a change that would “enable use” or “allow access” to the underlying assets of the Cayman Funds. The particular issue at hand was whether votes to remove and replace directors of the Upper Brook Funds had involved breaches of international sanctions. The Funds had received some USD 700,000,000 of investment of Libyan Sovereign wealth. In addition to arguing that shares had been used in breach of sanctions, PIAM argued that the shares had been unlawfully dealt with by making a change that would allow access to the underlying investments or enable their use. Both of these arguments were rejected on the basis that a mere change of control over the company by replacing its directions neither allowed access to the underlying investments or enabled their use.

This is the first major decision in the Cayman Islands on international sanctions. However, its significance is not limited to Cayman Islands law and the interpretation of the prohibition on “use” in Article 10 of the Order. Justice Segal found that the international sanctions regime (UN, EU, UK and Cayman) should be read a single harmonious code. This decision will therefore be highly relevant to the interpretation of UN and EU sanctions globally as well as UK domestic legislation implementing international sanctions.

Appleby (Cayman) Ltd represented the Upper Brook Funds and Dinah Rose QC appeared for them as counsel at trial.

Share
X.com LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
10 Apr 2025

Cayman Court Grants Convening Order, Marking Key Step in Kaisa’s Recovery Plan

Distressed Chinese property developer Kaisa takes step forward in its recovery, as Cayman Courts con...

Appleby-Website-Private-Equity
9 Apr 2025

Court Ruling helps clarify Creditor Rights in the Cayman Islands

In a recent decision of the Cayman Islands Grand Court it was confirmed that the authority of the di...

Appleby-Website-Fund-Finance
25 Mar 2025

Rights and Liabilities of Limited Partners of Exempted Limited Partnerships in the Cayman Islands

This overview will cover key aspects of Exempted Limited Partnerships (ELPs) under Cayman Islands la...

Appleby-Website-Technology-and-Innovation
14 Mar 2025

Snapshot of Recent Updates to the Virtual Assets Regime in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) – the regulatory authority for virtual assets – has...

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
10 Mar 2025

Empowered Voices: Caymanian Women Leading the Way at Appleby

The Cayman Islands is home to a dynamic community of women helping shape the legal industry. At Appl...

IWD Grid Capture
8 Mar 2025

International Women’s Day 2025 roundtable: Rights. Equality. Empowerment.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a...

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Feb 2025

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2024/2025 edition

Welcome to the Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up: October 2024 – February 2025 This update cov...

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Finance
20 Feb 2025

The Utility of the Share Premium Account in Cayman Islands Exempted Companies

Cayman Islands exempted companies are valued for their flexibility and ease of operation. A key com...