Cayman Islands: China Shansui Cement Group Limited: Cement Shoes for Directors?

Last Updated: 7 December 2015
Article by Tony Heaver-Wren and Jeremy Snead

In 2011, in the case of Re China Milk Products Group Limited Mr Justice Jones held that the directors of an insolvent company had inherent authority to petition for its winding up, even if they are not empowered to do so by the company's articles. Whilst this was a pragmatic interpretation of Cayman Islands law that resulted in the logical commercial outcome in that particular case (in which there was no shareholder opposition), the ruling in China Milk was criticised for giving directors a wider discretion than was intended by the legislation. In a carefully considered judgment handed down on 25 November 2015, Mrs Justice Mangatal disagreed with Mr Justice Jones's construction of the statutory provisions and struck out a winding up petition brought by the directors of an insolvent company who did not have the requisite authority from the shareholders to petition for the company's winding up.

The decision, as has been widely anticipated would occur in an appropriate case, has removed the ability of directors to unilaterally petition for the winding up of an insolvent company in circumstances where the shareholders do not support their proposal. This absence of this alternative will inevitably cause difficulty for directors' who owe fiduciary duties to the company, and must take into account the needs of creditors in considering these duties, when the company enters the "zone of insolvency". Directors may then be left in the difficult position of being forced to resign rather than carry on as stewards of an insolvent company without the power to petition the Court to place the company in liquidation. The legislative intent of the relevant Companies Law provision in the Cayman Islands is to permit a winding up of insolvent companies by creditors. This decision highlights that the law as drafted prevents the directors from acting directly in the interests of creditors when the shareholders are apathetic or act in their own self-interests and highlights the need for consideration of further legislative reform.

Directors' Powers Before China Milk

Section 94(1) of the Companies Law provides for the categories of persons that may present a petition for winding up by the Court: (a) the company; (b) creditors; (c) contributories; or (d) the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.

Section 94(2) provides that "Where expressly provided for in the articles of association of a company the directors of a company incorporated after the commencement of this Law have the authority to present a winding up petition on its behalf without the sanction of a resolution passed at a general meeting."

Before China Milk the practice was that whilst directors could make a recommendation to shareholders that the company should petition for its winding up, they could not implement this without shareholder approval, unless there were express terms in the articles permitting them to do so.

This principle stemmed from the English case of Re Emmadart, in which Brightman J (as he then was) considered the equivalent provision in the English Companies Act 1948. Having conducted an extensive review of the English and Commonwealth cases, Brightman J determined that the directors acted as agent of the company and needed to have authority conferred on them either by the articles of association or by the shareholders in general meeting. He therefore concluded that "the practice which seems to have grown up, under which a board of directors of an insolvent company presents a petition in the name of the company where this seems to the board to be the sensible course, but without reference to the shareholders, is in my opinion wrong and ought no longer to be pursued, unless the articles confer the requisite authority".

Emmadart was applied in the Cayman Islands in the decision of Mr Justice Smellie (as he then was) in Banco Economico SA v Allied Leasing and Finance Corporation.

The Decision in China Milk

In China Milk, Jones J was considering a petition for the winding up of China Milk Products (China Milk), an insolvent company, by its directors with the aim of appointing provisional liquidators to effect a scheme of arrangement (the common method for restructuring of debts in the Cayman Islands in the absence of a provision similar to the Administration process in England & Wales or Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code), supported by the majority of China Milk's bondholders. China Milk's shares were listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. There appears to have been no attempt in that case to seek the approval of the shareholders for the restructuring, but given the financial circumstances of China Milk those shares had no real economic value. In any event, the shareholders did not seek to challenge the petition, the issue only being argued before his Lordship because of his concerns to hear argument about whether the directors had power to present a winding up petition without a shareholder resolution.

In reaching his decision, Jones J concluded that Smellie J had reached the conclusion that Re Emmadart applied in the Cayman Islands "somewhat reluctantly" and went on to consider the section in the light of the substantial amendments to the Cayman Islands Companies Law from 2007-2009, resulting in the 2009 Revision of the Companies Law.

Jones J had been involved in the review leading to those amendments and spoke with first-hand knowledge about the considerations, indicating that the rule in Emmadart had been considered and the Legislature must have intended to abolish or circumscribe the rule because it did not distinguish appropriately between solvent and insolvent companies. Although this distinction did not actually appear in the subsequent legislative drafting Jones J determined that the directors of an insolvent company incorporated after 1 March 2009 (the implementation of the amendments) were entitled to present a winding up petition on behalf of and in the name of the company without reference to the shareholders and irrespective of the terms of the articles of association.

This meant that there was a difference of approach to be taken between solvent or insolvent Cayman Islands companies incorporated after 1 March 2009. If a company was solvent, a resolution was required, if it was insolvent, a resolution was not required, unless the articles expressly reserved this power to the shareholders. In doing so, Jones J noted that the position in England was subsequently changed by the Insolvency Act 1986, section 124(1), which empowered the directors to present a petition on grounds of insolvency in their own right, which was simply another way of achieving his interpretation.

There was no objection from the shareholders, who had no economic interest in the present case.

China Cement

Mangatal J was faced with a similar petition for the winding up of China Shanshui Cement Group Limited (China Cement), in conjunction with an application for the appointment of provisional liquidators to effect a restructuring of the debts of China Cement. China Cement's principal creditors supported the restructuring, whilst the shareholders did not, arguing that China Cement was balance sheet solvent. The directors petitioned for the winding up of China Cement on the just and equitable ground, for the purpose of appointing provisional liquidators, without the support of the shareholders. The articles contained no express authorisation for the directors to petition for China Cement's winding up.

Counsel for the shareholders applied to strike out the application on the basis that the petition was brought without sufficient standing by the board, referring back to the principles in Emmadart that the directors did not have the requisite authority to petition, submitting that China Milk had been wrongly decided. The shareholders argued that even if China Milk was correct, Jones J's logic could not apply where a company is balance sheet solvent, but suffering cash flow difficulties.

Counsel for China Cement argued that China Milk was a definitive statement of the law by an experienced Judge of the Grand Court with an unmatched knowledge of the topic. China Cement argued that Emmadart had only been applied before the major reform to the Cayman Islands Companies law and that China Milk had since become settled law. However, counsel could point the judge to no cases where other Grand Court Judges had followed the China Milk interpretation. In the absence of such authority, Mangatal J made reference to an article written by counsel for China Cement which questioned whether China Milk had been correctly decided and whether it would be followed in a future contested proceeding. It is unclear whether the article was put to the counsel for China Cement, but it was clear that the article undermined the bald assertion that China Milk was settled law.

Mangatal J was clearly reluctant to undermine judicial comity and certainty. However, she was cognisant that if she was convinced the decision was wrong, she could not shy away from not following it. She noted that although extensive submissions were made in China Milk, there was no party before the Court contending for an opposite conclusion and so the decision was not one arrived at after an opposed argument or application. Whilst accepting that Jones J was entitled to consider the legislative intention of the 2009 Revision, she noted that a difficulty of his application was that a materially similar section was in place prior to the amendments, when it was decided in Banco Economico that Emmadart applied in the Cayman Islands. Mangatal J indicated that there was nothing in the face of the section to support Jones J's distinction between solvent and insolvent companies and there was no change in wording of sub-section 94(1)(a) to give effect to the legislative intent referred to by Jones J. Mangatal J noted there appeared no reason to assume that the lack of substantive amendment to the section was not a deliberate decision on the part of the Legislature not to adopt the course indicated by Jones J – section 94(2) merely confirms that Emmadart provision.

Mangatal J disagreed that the restrictive interpretation of the section, giving effect to Emmadart, was not "unworkable or impractical" as suggested by Jones J, and that the interpretation had been working previously, even if there were parties who did not like those results or considered them impracticable. In Mangatal J's view the statutory provision contained no ambiguity and therefore, she reluctantly concluded that Jones J's construction of the statutory provisions was wrong, and that she was obliged to differ from them.

Mangatal J noted that Emmadart had been a "remarkably unpopular decision" but declined to enter the debate because in her view, the 2007-2009 reforms in the Cayman Islands left the ruling in Emmadart intact, particularly as the similar wording of the Law that existed in earlier jurisdictions had been considered in Banco Economico. She concluded that it would be wrong of her, as a Judge, to sweep that legislative decision away and that Jones J's description of the contrary arguments in favour of Emmadart left the Legislature with a decision and that the statutory provisions as they do in fact exist, left her with the ruling that China Cement had no authority or standing to present the winding up petition.

On a side note, given the directors lacked standing, China Cement asked Mangatal J to consider substituting a creditor to its petition. Mangatal J considered that the Companies Winding Up Rules only permitted a creditor to creditor substitution, not the substitution of a creditor for China Cement.


In the zone of insolvency, the wishes of shareholders will most often be at odds with the interests of creditors. The Emmadart rule, which Mangatal J considers still applies pursuant to section 94, restricts the directors' ability to seek the winding up of a company, effectively giving the shareholders a veto, despite the shareholders potentially having no realisable economic interest, due to the paramountcy of creditors.

This is the plain English interpretation of section 94 – the section itself makes no distinction between solvent and insolvent companies. As Mangatal J recognised, judicial restraint is required where a section is unambiguous even where the result is considered undesirable or impractical by some parties, otherwise the judges begin to infringe on the constitutional separation of powers.

However, the general scheme of the winding up provisions is to protect creditors when a company becomes insolvent. A shareholder veto on the directors' action contradicts this principle, fettering the directors' ability to act in the interests of the creditors at the crucial point in time, leaving a director in a difficult position with respect to his fiduciary duties and perhaps with no option but to resign. Although the ruling of Jones J in China Milk is a pragmatic judgment that is consistent with this overall scheme, permitting the directors to act as they consider appropriately, the China Cement decision is a clear indication that the plain English reading of the provision will be preferred, despite the arguably anomalous result. Clearly there is a case for legislative reform in this area, but for now the plain English reading of section 94(1) prevails, with the consequence that the law in the Cayman Islands is consistent with the Emmadart rule.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions