The liquidators obtained orders against PwC under the laws of the Cayman Islands for the production of documents, which laws provided for the production of only documents that were the property of the insolvent companies. PwC complied with these orders. The liquidators were not content with PwC’s disclosure and sought disclosure of PwC’s audit work papers, which PwC contended were not property of the companies, through proceedings in Bermuda.

SAAD

In 2012, the liquidators obtained an ancillary winding-up order in respect of Saad from the Bermuda Court, which appointed the Cayman liquidators as liquidators in the Bermuda ancillary liquidation. Subsequently, the Bermuda liquidators of Saad obtained an ex parteorder from the Bermuda Court pursuant to section 195 of the Bermuda Companies Act requiring PwC to provide to the liquidators, among other things, Saad audit work papers.

PwC challenged the liquidators’ ex parte disclosure order in the Bermuda Supreme Court and Bermuda Court of Appeal on the ground that the Bermuda Court does not have jurisdiction under the Companies Act to wind up overseas companies. The Bermuda Supreme Court rejected PwC’s challenge on the grounds that it did have jurisdiction to wind up overseas companies and that PwC’s challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the winding-up order. The Bermuda Court of Appeal rejected PwC’s appeal.

PwC did not oppose the making of the winding-up order in Court. PwC was not served with the winding-up petition, but it was advertised as required in a Bermuda newspaper. As a general rule, a winding-up order once made cannot be attacked in subsequent proceedings.

PwC was successful on its appeal to the Privy Council (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2014] UKPC 35). The Privy Council held that the Bermuda Court does not have jurisdiction to wind up overseas companies save for certain statutory exceptions which did not apply. PwC was entitled to challenge the making of the winding-up order in circumstances where the Bermuda Court had no jurisdiction to make the order and the winding-up petition was brought solely for the purpose of obtaining disclosure of documents from PwC. The Privy Council decision was heavily influenced by the fact the liquidators only brought winding-up proceedings in Bermuda to obtain information from PwC. The Privy Council permanentl

Read More

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
15 Apr 2021 |

6 months on: Temporary relocation and residency by investment continues to increase in popularity

Six months on from the new digital nomad programmes, did the predicted upward trend reflect the real...

25 Mar 2021 |

Full Steam Ahead at the Jersey Ships Registry

Against a backdrop of uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the difficulties created by the global pand...

24 Mar 2021 |

Economic Substance update Q1 2021

Economic Substance update Q1 2021

12 Mar 2021 |

Material adverse change clauses in light of the Covid-19 pandemic

Experts from each of our key global offices provide jurisdiction specific advice and answer question...

8 Mar 2021 |

Appleby Celebrates International Women’s Day

International Women’s Day is celebrated annually in support of gender equality and equal participa...

14 Dec 2020 |

Technology & Innovation Update Q4 2020

Technology & Innovation Update Q4 2020

Contributors: Peter Colegate
14 Dec 2020 |

Economic Substance update Q4 2020

Economic Substance update Q4 2020

27 Nov 2020 |

NAV Facilities: A Promising Vaccine for Funds in the Era of Covid-19?

The spotlight has been on NAV facilities and other bespoke financings as an area poised for growth, ...