Maples and Calder recently represented an Irish main contractor in successfully defending a payment dispute in adjudication.
The adjudicator's decision hinged on two issues: an interpretation of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 ("the Act"); and the effect that he gave to contractual provisions agreed by the parties to remove ambiguities left by the provisions of the Act.
Maples and Calder has been recognised for their recent Cayman Islands and Irish legal advice to Ocean Rig UDW and three of its subsidiaries on the successful restructuring of US$3.7 billion of financial indebtedness. The complex and cutting edge restructuring, which is the largest ever Cayman Islands cross border debt restructuring, secured the firm "Restructuring of the Year ($1B - $5B)" and "Energy Deal of the Year" at the 10th Annual M&A Advisor Awards.
Maples and Calder welcomes senior lawyer Alex Hall Taylor to its growing British Virgin Islands office. Formerly a barrister at leading English Chambers 4 New Square, Alex joins as a Partner in Maples and Calder's BVI litigation practice, teaming up with Partner Adrian Francis, who joined the firm from Three Stone Chambers in October 2017.
On 6 February 2018, the Irish Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in ACC Loan Management Limited v Rickard ("Rickard") in relation to the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution on the basis that the issue was one of general and public importance.
In a decision that does much to reassert legal certainty for investors in Cayman Islands funds the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal ("CICA") has overruled a decision of the Grand Court concerning the circumstances in which an official liquidator of a solvent company could rectify the register of members, in 'In the matter of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation)'.
The Grand Court had held that section 112(2) of the Companies Law empowered an official liquidator to go behind a contractually binding (but misstated) NAV and substitute a correct NAV in its place. The CICA disagreed and, while noting the potential for harsh and indeed arguably unfair outcomes for some investors where a binding (but misstated) NAV was upheld, preferred to uphold the principle of legal certainty for all investors, and followed the recent line of authority from the Privy Council decisions in Fairfield Sentry and Pearson v Primeo.