Case 17-2992, Document 1094-7, 05/09/2018, 2299298, Page1 of 153 Exhibit List Jurisdiction Exhibit Number Statutes & Regulations British Virgin Islands Insolvency Act (2003), Part XIX (Sections 466–472) British Virgin Islands 1 Cayman Companies Law (2016), Sections 145–147, 240–243 Cayman Islands 2 United Kingdom Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations (2006), Art. 25 of Schedule 1 United Kingdom 3 United Kingdom Insolvency Act (1986), Sections 213, 238–239, 423, 426 United Kingdom 4 Cases Re Al Sabah [2002] CILR 148 Cayman Islands 5 Al Sabah and Another v. Grupo Torras SA [2005] UKPC 1, [2005] 2 A.C. 333 United Kingdom 6 AWB Geneva SA v. North America Steamships Limited [2007] 1 CLC 749 United Kingdom 7 AWB Geneva SA v. North America Steamships Limited [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 31 Canada 8 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Cosmos Trading Corporation [2000] 1 BCLC 813 United Kingdom 9 Banque Indosuez SA v. Ferromet Resources Inc [1993] BCLC 112 United Kingdom 10 Bilta (UK) Ltd v Nazir (No 2) [2013] 2 WLR 825 United Kingdom 11 Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Nazir [2014] Ch 52 (CA) United Kingdom 12 Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Nazir [2016] AC 1 (SC) United Kingdom 13 Bloom v. Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” GmbH & Co KG [2010] Ch 187 United Kingdom 14 In re C (A Bankrupt) BVIHC 0080/2013 British Virgin Islands 15 Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator United Kingdom 16 Holdings plc [2006] UKPC 26, [2007] 1 A.C. 508 Re China Agrotech Holdings Ltd. , Unreported, Cause No. FSD 157 of 2017 (NSJ) (Grand Ct. Fin. Servs. Cayman Islands 17 Div. Sept. 19, 2017) Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 852 United Kingdom 18 Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Ltd v. Spjeldnaes [2000] BCC 16 United Kingdom 19 Re Oriental Inland Steam Co, Ex p Scinde Railway Co (1874) LR 9 Ch App 557 United Kingdom 20 1 Case 17-2992, Document 1094-7, 05/09/2018, 2299298, Page2 of 153 Exhibit List Jurisdiction Exhibit Number Cases, continued Re Paramount Airways Ltd [1993] Ch 223 United Kingdom 21 Picard v. Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC BVIHCV140/2010 British Virgin Islands 22 Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236; [2012] UKSC 46 United Kingdom 23 Singularis Holdings Ltd v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36, [2015] A.C. 1675 United Kingdom 24 Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v. Krys [2015] AC 616; [2014] UKPC 41 United Kingdom 25 Other Authorities McPherson’s Law of Company Liquidation (4th ed. 2017) United Kingdom 26 Anthony Smellie, A Cayman Islands Perspective on Trans-Border Insolvencies and Bankruptcies: The Cayman Islands 27 Case for Judicial Co-Operation , 2 Beijing L. Rev. 4 (2011) Cases Cited by Amici Curiae A, B, C & D v. E , HCVAP 2011/001 Anguilla 28 Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v C&K (Construction) Ltd [1976] AC 167 United Kingdom 29 Re Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. , 2000 CanLII 22482 (O.N.S.C.) Canada 30 Blum v. Bruce Campbell & Co. , [1992-3] CILR 591 Cayman Islands 31 Changgang Dunxin Enterprise Company Ltd. , Unreported, Cause No. FSD 270 of 2017 (LMJ) (Grand Cayman Islands 32 Ct. Fin. Servs. Div. Feb. 8, 2018) Re CHC Group Ltd. , Unreported, Cause No. FSD 5 of 2017 (RMJ) (Grand Ct. Fin. Servs. Div. Jan. 10, Cayman Islands 33 2017) Re China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd. [2015] 2 CILR 255 Cayman Islands 34 Didisheim v. London & Westminster Bank , [1900] 2 Ch. 15 United Kingdom 35 Kilderkin Investments Ltd. v. Player [1984-85] CILR 63 Cayman Islands 36 Re Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd. [2009] CILR 7 Cayman Islands 37 Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. [1978] AC 547 United Kingdom 38 Re Trident Microsystems (Far East) Ltd. [2012] (1) CILR 424 Cayman Islands 39 UBS AG New York and others v. Krys , BVIHCM 2009/0136 British Virgin Islands 40 2 Case 17-2992, Document 1094-7, 05/09/2018, 2299298, Page3 of 153 Exhibit 31 Case 17-2992, Document 1094-7, 05/09/2018, 2299298, Page4 of 153 [1992–93 CILR 591] BLUM v. BRUCE CAMPBELL AND COMPANY and CAMPBELL CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED GRAND COURT (Smellie, J.): October 20th, 1993 Trusts—foreign-appointed trustee—recognition and enforcement of appointment—foreign order appointing trustee is judgment in rem—prima facie entitled to recognition in Cayman Islands but no direct enforcement if terms of appointment unknown to Cayman law and legal effect and consequences uncertain Family Law—property—appointment of receiver—trustee of missing person’s assets appointed by foreign court on petition of wife may be appointed receiver in respect of assets in Cayman Islands if beneficial to estate and just to defendants and creditors Family Law—property—appointment of receiver—Rules of Supreme Court, O.30, r.1 allows ex parte application for appointment of receiver of missing person’s assets—court has discretion to grant application in proceedings already in progress without fresh pleadings or affidavit of fitness to act The plaintiff applied for (a) declarations recognizing and enforcing a foreign order which appointed him trustee over the assets in the Cayman Islands of a person whose whereabouts were unknown; and (b) injunctions to facilitate disclosure from the defendants. A Pennsylvania court appointed the plaintiff as trustee of the assets in the Cayman Islands of a person who had disappeared two years earlier while on a solo sailing trip. Death was not presumed, as the statutory seven-year period had not then expired. By the terms of the order, the trustee was empowered inter alia to “recover and take possession of any assets which . the absentee has or has the right to possess.” The plaintiff brought the present proceedings in the Cayman Islands seeking (a) declarations recognizing his authority at large to seek and recover any assets within the jurisdiction belonging to the absentee; and (b) mandatory injunctions directing the defendants to disclose to him all information in their possession concerning the property of the absentee and to deliver up all such property in their possession, custody or control. There was no evidence before the court of any identified property or of any involvement of the absentee with the second defendant but the first defendant admitted that the absentee was a client and there was affidavit evidence from the absentee’s wife setting out her belief that the defendants or others might be holding assets on behalf of her husband. 1992–93 CILR 592 The trustee submitted inter alia that (a) since the Pennsylvania order of appointment was a final order made by a court of competent jurisdiction it was in effect a judgment in rem and as such was conclusive and binding in the Cayman Islands, as against all the world; (b) accordingly, the defendants were obliged to recognize the order in the Cayman Islands and the present application was in fact strictly unnecessary; (c) recognition and enforcement of the order would be in the best interests of the estate and beneficiaries and, in particular, would properly result in the fair treatment of the absentee’s dependants and his creditors; (d) as a practical solution, in the alternative, he could be appointed a receiver by the court over the absentee’s assets; and (e) he was entitled to the costs of the application. The defendants, while adopting a neutral stance on the general merits of the trustee’s position and his claim for recognition, submitted that whatever order was made, it should not result in the direct enforcement of the US order against them since that order did not as a matter of Cayman law guarantee them an effective and complete discharge against any later claims by the absentee (should he reappear) or by others in respect of property or information handed over to the trustee. Held, granting the application in part: (1) Since the Pennsylvania court was of competent jurisdiction, its final order appointing the plaintiff as the trustee of the missing person amounted to a judgment in rem entitled to recognition in the Cayman Islands. The declaration of his status vis-à-vis the missing person and the general assignment of his property and rights to property together constituted the res. There was nothing to suggest that the rules of the lex situs in respect of any assignment of real property or indeed any other rules of law or public policy justified refusing recognition of the order. Even the fact that the appointment of a trustee to act for a missing person was a concept unknown to Cayman law did not preclude its recognition when the compelling practical reasons for doing so were taken into account. The court would therefore grant a declaration recognizing the appointment (page 594, line 39 – page 595, line 4; page 598, lines 24–30; page 600, lines 20–28). (2) Nevertheless, despite the order of appointment being a judgment in rem, the defendants had properly objected to its direct enforcement in the Cayman Islands since there were matters of Cayman law which had to be considered before they could be certain that they were acting properly Case 17-2992, Document 1094-7, 05/09/2018, 2299298, Page5 of 153 in relying on it. In particular, the defendants would have had no way of knowing whether in responding to the trustee they would have been obtaining an effective and complete discharge in relation to the missing person (should he reappear) and as against others at large, in respect of any property or information handed over to the trustee. It would also clearly be wrong in principle and bad policy directly to enforce a foreign procedure which had no known parallel in the Cayman Islands—especially when there was insufficient evidence before the court to allow it to make a full assessment of the relationship between 1992–93 CILR 593 the missing person and the defendants (page 596, lines 15–23; page 597, line 31 – page 598, line 5; page 598, lines 10–24).