By Mark Goodman, Partner at Campbells (Cayman Islands)

The Cayman Islands remains a key jurisdiction for investment fund insolvency and restructuring, supported by a well-established legal framework, experienced judiciary, and strong cross-border expertise. As an international financial centre, it is frequently selected for complex restructuring and winding-up proceedings involving global stakeholders.

In this interview, Mark Goodman, Partner at Campbells, explores the legal features that underpin the jurisdiction’s reputation, including its approach to cross-border insolvency, evolving restructuring mechanisms, and the impact of wider economic developments on the investment fund market. Drawing on extensive experience in contentious and non-contentious matters, he outlines the practical considerations facing investors, creditors, and advisors navigating complex restructurings.

Below, he discusses how the Cayman framework continues to evolve in response to global economic shifts and complex cross-border restructurings.

Mark Goodman, Partner at Campbells (Cayman Islands)

Expert Q&A

What makes the Cayman Islands an attractive jurisdiction for handling insolvency and restructuring cases, particularly for investment funds? 

As a leading global financial centre, the Cayman Islands benefits from a stable regulatory regime, a legal system modelled on English law, and an independent judiciary, with final appeals heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the UK. Its statutory framework is supported by well-established common law principles drawn from both local decisions and wider Commonwealth jurisprudence.

The jurisdiction’s insolvency and restructuring regime is particularly well developed. The Grand Court’s dedicated Financial Services Division ensures that cases are overseen by judges with relevant commercial experience, providing continuity and specialist oversight throughout proceedings.

Cayman law is generally regarded as creditor-friendly, with creditors typically entitled to a winding-up order where insolvency is established. At the same time, the framework also includes debtor-protection mechanisms that allow companies to seek breathing space while proposing restructuring solutions or compromises with stakeholders.

The court has become increasingly experienced in distinguishing cases where restructuring offers greater value from those where liquidation is the better outcome for creditors or shareholders. Insolvency practitioners are regulated under the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act 2019, which requires professional qualifications, experience, and independent oversight.

Taken together, these elements create an environment in which insolvency and restructuring matters are handled by experienced professionals before a specialised and independent judiciary, supported by a mature body of statutory and case law.

How does Cayman Islands law address the unique complexities of cross-border insolvency, and what benefits does this provide to international clients? 

The Cayman Islands has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency but has developed its own mechanisms for the management of cross-border cases.

Foreign-appointed officeholders over a Cayman company are therefore not able to seek recognition of their appointment in the Cayman Islands through the mechanisms included in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Instead, a foreign-appointed officeholder must seek an appointment in Cayman jointly with a locally resident, licensed insolvency practitioner. 

Appointees of a foreign company with interests in the Cayman Islands can seek recognition of their appointment pursuant to section 241 of the Companies Act (2023 Revision). The Grand Court also applies common law principles of comity in providing assistance to foreign-appointed liquidators short of recognition. 

Order 21 of the Companies Winding-up Rules 2018 imposes a positive duty upon a Cayman liquidator to consider entering into an international protocol with any foreign counterpart, aimed at harmonising the management of the liquidation to avoid wasteful and expensive duplication of effort.

Between the courts themselves, the Grand Court has previously recognised a positive duty to assist the foreign main insolvency or restructuring proceeding, and in Practice Direction 1 of 2018, approved the American Law Institute/International Insolvency Institute (“ALI/III”) and the Judicial Insolvency Network (“JIN”) Guidelines for court-to-court communications as being suitable for use in cross-border insolvency and restructuring cases.  

In what ways have recent economic shifts impacted the insolvency and restructuring landscape for investment funds in the Cayman Islands? 

The Cayman Islands occupies a unique position as an insolvency and restructuring jurisdiction in that most of the well-over 100,000 locally incorporated companies conduct business activities mostly or exclusively outside of the Cayman Islands.

As a result, Cayman companies have operations and interests which span the globe and cover every industry sector, making the Cayman Islands less susceptible to localised trends or economic shifts.

Global macro-economic or geopolitical events, such as the Global Financial Crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic, had a pronounced effect on the local insolvency and restructuring market, but for the most part, the number of insolvency and restructuring filings year-on-year shows a steady upward trend. 

Jurisdictionally, there has been a significant increase over the past decade in disputes and insolvency cases emanating from the PRC. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a dramatic reduction in Russian-exposed disputes and insolvency cases due to economic sanctions. 

In terms of industry sectors, the mainstream adoption of cryptocurrency as an investment instrument and the increased interest of institutional investors in digital assets has seen significant growth in crypto and fintech-related investment funds.

As a consequence, the Cayman Islands has seen its fair share of the global rise in crypto and fintech-related disputes and insolvencies. The continued evolution of the digital assets landscape suggests that this trend is set to continue.  

What are the primary legal considerations for clients involved in restructuring or insolvency cases in the Cayman Islands, and how can they navigate these effectively? 

The primary considerations for stakeholders in restructuring or insolvency cases tend to be essentially the same, as in both cases stakeholders hope to maximise their return in the shortest possible time. In a restructuring case, the objective tends to be to stabilise the company so that it can continue as a going concern and return greater value over time. Stakeholders in a restructuring case might typically expect to be offered shares in exchange for debt, or for notes to be extended and amended.

A liquidation of an insolvent company usually involves identifying that the subject company has no viable future as a going concern, and the objective becomes to maximise the return by realising assets as advantageously as possible and looking to other sources of potential recovery, which would generally involve litigation.

Since the two strategies are generally mutually exclusive, it is important to identify the difference as early as possible and then be inventive and flexible about value-creating solutions.  

How does litigation related to investment fund restructuring differ in the Cayman Islands compared to other jurisdictions? 

Restructuring in the Cayman Islands has its roots firmly in English law, and the primary tool for restructuring remains the scheme of arrangement, which is a form of statutory contract that is very flexible in its application and allows a majority to bind a dissenting minority, providing that requisite majorities in number and value support the scheme at class meetings and the court adjudicates the scheme to be fair.

To successfully challenge a scheme of arrangement, the two main strategies for dissenters are building a blocking position to vote down the scheme of arrangement at the class meetings or, failing that, challenging the scheme of arrangement on grounds of fairness. 

A recent development which differentiates Cayman as a restructuring jurisdiction is the introduction of the Restructuring Officer regime. Formerly, it was necessary for a company (or a so-called “friendly creditor”) to petition for the liquidation of the company in order for the company to apply to appoint provisional liquidators on a “light-touch” basis so as to invoke the statutory moratorium on claims while the company proposed a compromise or arrangement to its creditors.

While this was a creative application of existing statutory provisions, it had the downside that a winding-up petition must first be presented, and thereafter the company was under the control of provisional liquidators (however “light-touch”) and by convention would add the words “in provisional liquidation” after its name.

This taint of insolvency discouraged some companies from using the process to the ultimate detriment of their stakeholders, but the new Restructuring Officer regime does not require a winding-up petition to be presented or the appointment of provisional liquidators, so it is a helpful evolution of the practice.  

For clients looking to protect their investments, what proactive measures can they take in light of current insolvency and restructuring trends? 

Investors should be wary of any attempt to vary or limit their recourse in the event of insolvency. Non-petition clauses have become very common and will be upheld by the Grand Court.

Articles of association and other constitutional documents might also include other restrictions, such as onerous limitation periods, indemnities for directors and officers, and other restrictions that may make recoveries difficult in the event of economic failure.  

About Mark Goodman

Mark Goodman is a Partner in the Litigation, Insolvency & Restructuring Group at Campbells, where he focuses on insolvency, restructuring, and investment fund litigation across complex cross-border matters. He regularly advises and appears before the Cayman Islands courts on behalf of provisional and official liquidators, creditors, shareholders, directors, and other professional stakeholders in pre- and post-liquidation disputes, with a particular emphasis on distressed investment funds.

His practice includes acting on high-profile restructuring and enforcement matters involving significant international liabilities, including restructurings and bond enforcement claims across Asia and offshore jurisdictions. Mark is also an accredited mediator and frequently contributes to industry discussion through publications, seminars, and conference speaking engagements on insolvency and restructuring developments.

In addition to his practice, he serves as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group V, which focuses on insolvency law reform and harmonisation.

Unlike common law jurisdictions, disputes are governed primarily by the UAE Civil Code (Federal Law No. 5 of 1985), which embeds principles of good faith, judicial discretion in the assessment of damages, and statutory decennial liability. Liquidated damages, force majeure, and termination provisions remain subject to judicial oversight, underscoring the importance of careful drafting and disciplined contract administration.

The introduction of the UAE Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018), alongside the continued development of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), has reinforced the UAE’s position as a regional dispute resolution hub. Arbitration and mediation are now firmly embedded within major project frameworks.

Against this backdrop, effective claims strategy and contractual risk management have become central to managing legal exposure across the sector.

In this interview, Mustafa S. Khattab, Senior Contracts Manager and construction law specialist, discusses the structural drivers of disputes in the UAE, the increasing role of ADR, and the practical disciplines required to mitigate risk in complex construction projects.

What led you to focus your career on claims management and construction dispute strategy within the UAE?

The UAE offers a uniquely sophisticated legal and commercial environment. Its codified civil law system — combined with rapid infrastructure expansion — creates a setting where contractual precision and strategic risk management are essential.

The scale and pace of projects here naturally generate complex claims environments. Delay, variation and termination disputes often involve substantial financial exposure. I was drawn to this field because it sits at the intersection of technical construction expertise, legal interpretation, and commercial negotiation.

As ADR mechanisms have matured within the UAE, the role of the contracts professional has evolved beyond administration into strategic dispute management. That evolution has shaped my professional focus.

In your experience, what categories of dispute most frequently arise in UAE construction projects?

The recurring disputes tend to centre on:

• Extension of Time (EOT) and delay analysis

• Variations and scope modification

• Termination and suspension rights

• Liquidated damages assessments

• Force majeure and unforeseen events

These issues are typically linked to compressed delivery programmes, evolving design parameters, and complex subcontracting structures. In large-scale projects, even minor contractual ambiguities can escalate into substantial claims if not managed proactively.

How does the UAE’s legal framework shape dispute strategy compared to common law jurisdictions?

The UAE’s reliance on codified statute rather than precedent significantly influences dispute positioning.

Under the Civil Code, principles such as good faith and proportionality allow courts to intervene in contractual damage calculations, including liquidated damages. This means contractual drafting cannot rely solely on strict wording — it must anticipate statutory interpretation.

Additionally, decennial liability provisions create heightened exposure in certain construction contexts.

Strategically, this requires a balanced approach: strong contractual drafting combined with an awareness of how courts and tribunals may exercise discretion.

When a dispute arises, how do you structure your assessment and resolution strategy?

My approach begins with a detailed contractual and evidentiary review. Programme records, cost data, correspondence and risk registers must be analysed objectively before forming any strategic position.

Once the factual matrix is clear, I assess commercial exposure, stakeholder priorities, and reputational considerations. Not every dispute warrants immediate escalation.

The next step is to determine the most appropriate resolution pathway — whether structured negotiation, mediation, arbitration or litigation. The strategy must align with both legal merit and commercial objectives.

The objective is not merely dispute defence, but risk containment and commercially sustainable resolution.

From a preventative standpoint, how critical is communication and contract discipline in reducing disputes?

It is fundamental.

Many disputes originate not from bad faith but from inadequate documentation, unclear scope definition, or delayed notification.

Effective contract administration — including contemporaneous records, structured reporting, and early risk identification — dramatically reduces escalation.

In practice, disciplined communication often resolves issues before they crystallise into formal claims.

How do arbitration and mediation compare to traditional court proceedings in the UAE construction context?

Arbitration has become the preferred mechanism for major construction disputes in the UAE, particularly in projects involving international stakeholders.

The development of institutions within the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) has enhanced procedural certainty and enforcement confidence.

Mediation is also gaining traction, particularly where parties seek to preserve long-term commercial relationships.

Compared to court litigation, ADR offers procedural flexibility, confidentiality, and technical expertise — all critical in complex construction disputes.

What practical measures should project stakeholders adopt to minimise dispute exposure?

Risk identification must begin at project inception. Scope clarity, risk allocation, and realistic scheduling are essential foundations.

Beyond drafting, consistent contract administration throughout the project lifecycle is equally important. Notification requirements, variation procedures, and record-keeping obligations must be observed strictly.

Early engagement with claims specialists when issues emerge can prevent minor disagreements from escalating into formal proceedings.

Looking ahead, how do you see technology and sustainability shaping construction disputes in the UAE?

Technological integration — including AI-driven scheduling, cost modelling, and digital documentation — is improving transparency and analytical accuracy.

However, increased reliance on digital systems may also introduce new forms of dispute, particularly where automated forecasting or modelling errors affect performance metrics.

Sustainability compliance and green building standards will similarly introduce new contractual obligations and potential liabilities.

While technology may reduce certain evidentiary disputes, it will also reshape the types of claims that arise. Adaptability in dispute strategy will therefore remain essential.

About Mustafa S. Khattab

Mustafa S. Khattab (BArch, MSc Construction Law, MCIArb, MiBArb) is a Senior Contracts Manager with over 20 years of experience in commercial management, contract strategy, and dispute resolution within large-scale infrastructure and aviation projects.

His practice spans pre- and post-contract stages, with a particular focus on claims development, risk mitigation, and structured dispute resolution. Combining technical construction expertise with formal legal training, he advises on complex contractual frameworks and high-value claims across both public and private sector environments.

To understand what has changed, what has stayed the same, and how remote hearings truly affect families, we revisited long-standing insights from Melbourne family law expert Nadine Udorovic, Partner at Nicholes Family Lawyers. Her experience—spanning complex parenting disputes, international child abduction cases, and high-stakes property matters—offers a grounded look at how remote hearings function in practice today, five years on from their rapid adoption.

👉 UK Read: Remote Family Hearings in 2025: Do UK Parents Still Get a Fair Hearing? 👈

👉 US Read: Remote Family Court Hearings U.S. Are Still Reshaping Justice — But Are They Fair for Parents? 👈

What impact has the pandemic had on the legal sector in Australia?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on almost every aspect of the legal sector in Australia. In terms of legal practice, the profession has had to adapt to meet the needs of clients during this uncertain time.

For instance, the Courts have changed their ordinary processes and have implemented new digital solutions to deal with the challenges presented by COVID-19. Hearings at the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court (which deals with less complex Family Law matters) are now being conducted virtually through either Microsoft Teams or AAPT Teleconferencing. Further, the COVID-19 Courts List was established on 29 April 2020 and is dedicated to dealing exclusively with urgent Family Law disputes that have arisen as a direct result of COVID-19.

The pandemic has also had an impact on the day to day practice of lawyers and barristers. Pursuant to the Practice Directions issued by the Chief Justice of the Family Court and Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, the Hon William Alstergren on 3 August 2020, all practitioners are now required to e-file and e-lodge all Court documents in order to facilitate the move to electronic management of matters.

Even ordinary working conditions have changed, with the majority of staff in almost every firm now working from home.

Are remote hearings equally fair and just as in-person hearings?

The only difference between an in-person hearing and a remote (virtual) hearing is that the remote hearing is conducted via electronic means with the parties participating through digital platforms. The same strict rules of evidence and procedure still apply to remote hearings and all Court formalities are still expected to be complied with.

In this way there should, at least theoretically, be no difference in the fairness of the hearing. However, the new method of participation in Court hearings will be unfamiliar to litigants and may be particularly confusing for older, less technologically intuitive individuals. This is why the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court have published a practitioner and litigant guide to virtual hearings and Microsoft Teams to ensure everyone understands how to join the hearing. Prehearing preparation by the Court is also vital in ensuring that remote hearings provide a fair and just process.

Many parents and families expressed concerns about remote hearings; what are common concerns and are they justified?

The most common concerns expressed by litigants relate to difficulty accessing or using the technology necessary for involvement in the remote hearing. Many people do not have easy access to computers and for some their poor internet connection renders a smooth hearing almost impossible. Linked with this concern is the concern that they will struggle to follow along with proceedings and participate in a meaningful way if their online connection is tenuous. Given the nature of remote hearings, there are a number of barriers to natural justice that are presented.

Further, it has been argued that the lack of face-to-face contact in remote hearings create conditions in which hearings are not conducted with the same level of empathy that typically marks Family Law hearings.

There is also the difficulty for litigants to give instructions to their lawyer during the hearing as there is often no facility on the video platform for a separate private chat, unless a separate Zoom meeting or telephone conference is established for clients and their legal teams. So often there is the challenge of having to move between Zoom meetings, phone calls and the Court hearing on multiple platforms which can be confusing and unsettling for litigants who are already under immense pressure.

These concerns appear to be justified and could reasonably have been expected with the move to remote hearings. Similar concerns have been raised in the UK (Nuffield Family Justice Observatory Report 2020).

What barriers do remote hearings present?

Given the nature of remote hearings, there are a number of barriers to natural justice that are presented. As previously mentioned, the technological issues on the digital platforms can make the efficient running of matters next to impossible. Remote hearings also present significant issues for witness examination.

It is very difficult for the Judge to read the body language of witnesses over video conference. Judges and Magistrates will usually take note of the witness’ body language when assessing the truthfulness of their evidence, so the limited visibility of the parties in remote hearings will make it much harder for them to get a feel for the evidence given.  Additionally, the emailing of Court documents to witnesses during cross-examination and ensuring that everyone is looking at the same document can break the momentum of questioning and cause general confusion.

How do you overcome these?

Due to the number of remote hearings currently taking place as well as the imperfect nature of modern videoconferencing it is likely that technological issues will persist as long as remote hearings are in use. Yet we are still in the early stages of their mainstream operation.

Although the system will never be flawless, the supporting technology will continue to improve the more it is developed and issues presenting a barrier to a fair hearing will become less and less prevalent. The Court can also refine its processes so that remote hearings run more smoothly. Part of this involves the Courts preparing the parties for their remote hearing by sending them comprehensive guidelines as well as testing the platform before the trial.

Overcoming the difficulties in remote witness examination may prove quite difficult without significant improvements in the videoconferencing technology. Obviously, trials conducted via teleconferencing will remain an exception. Online hearings are not without their shortcomings and careful thought should be put into deciding on their ongoing use for sensitive matters.

Alternatively, how have remote hearings positively impacted family law proceedings?

There have certainly been positives that have come from the use of remote hearings. The flexibility of the Courts in opting for virtual hearings and allowing for urgent matters to be triaged has prevented the backlog of cases from becoming unmanageable during lockdown. As the parties are unable to hand paperwork to the Judge in Court there are greater efforts made to ensure all paperwork has been submitted well in advance of the hearing which has increased the efficiency of the trial. This saves litigants both time and money.

It can also be argued that attending Court virtually is less intimidating than attending physically, as although the formal rules of Court still apply the situation is quite different with each party in their own comfortable environment. It may also work better for those with young children at home who would have found the need for a carer difficult or expensive, not to mention for those not familiar with the Melbourne CBD or other built up areas, being able to remain in the comfort of your own home or familiar surroundings may be of assistance to some litigants.

Do you think the pandemic and the temporary changes its brought will have a lasting impact in your area of law?

There have been calls throughout the profession to maintain the benefits of remote hearings in a post-COVID-19 world.  If remote hearings can be seen as streamlining cases and resulting in a more efficient system for all parties it would seem stubborn to not embrace them in the future.

Yet what must be remembered is that any new mechanism should not be favoured at the expense of the proper process. Online hearings are not without their shortcomings and careful thought should be put into deciding on their ongoing use for sensitive matters. The judicial officers responsible for the running of the matter will ultimately be in charge of deciding what, if any, new technology will be used.

Editorial Note on Australian Remote Hearing Law (Updated 2025)

Since the original content was published in 2020, Australia’s family law system has undergone substantial structural and procedural reforms. The Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court were formally merged on 1 September 2021 into the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), bringing a unified set of rules and digital processes. Remote hearings are now an established, regulated feature of the Court’s operations rather than a temporary pandemic measure.

As of 2025, electronic hearings may be directed by the Court or requested by a party, using Microsoft Teams or Webex, with detailed guidelines outlined in the FCFCOA’s Practitioner and Litigant Guide to Electronic Hearings. Most interim, procedural, and short-duration hearings continue to be held remotely when suitable, while complex trials, cross-examinations, and sensitive family violence matters are more commonly listed in person unless exceptional circumstances apply.

The legal framework now requires strict compliance with electronic etiquette, prohibits any recording of hearings, and provides expanded support for individuals with special needs, including access, interpreters, and technology assistance. Remote hearings remain a formal court process subject to the Family Law Act 1975, the FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021, and the Court’s ongoing digital transformation initiatives.

About the Expert

Nadine Udorovic
Partner, Nicholes Family Lawyers

Email: Nadine@nicholeslaw.com.au
Phone: +61 3 9670 4122
Fax: +61 3 9670 5122
Website: https://nicholeslaw.com.au/
Address: Level 12, 460 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
Languages: English, Croatian

My name is Nadine Udorovic and I am a Partner at Nicholes Family Lawyers in Australia. Nicholes Family Lawyers is a leading specialist provider of Family Law services based in Melbourne with clients throughout Australia and internationally. I have practised exclusively in the area of family law for over 17 years with experience in a range of different areas including complex children’s and property matters, Intervention Orders, international child abduction and relocation matters, the preparation of binding financial agreements and child support agreements and adoption and surrogacy matters. I am also a qualified Collaborative Law Practitioner.

At Nicholes Family Lawyers, our practice is underpinned by a commitment to avoid litigation through the courts, where it is possible and preferable for our clients. In pursuit of this commitment, we utilise Alternative Dispute Resolution, specifically Collaborative Law, to assist clients with the arduous and often challenging nature of Family Law matters. Our lawyers, Managing Partner, Sally Nicholes, Partner Nadine Udorovic and Partner Rebecca Dahl are all qualified Collaborative Law Practitioners and are committed to pursuing its benefits in resolving Family Law disputes for those clients for whom it is an appropriate approach. 

Collaborative Law is a process in which parties and their lawyers commit to resolving a family law dispute outside of litigation. Parties and their lawyers focus on reaching the best outcomes and solutions for the parties, rather than positional based negotiations. This has provided a positive for clients who choose to take that option. A key benefit of Collaborative Law is its accessibility and informality compared to traditional litigation.

The main distinction between Collaborative Practice as opposed to the usual methods of family dispute resolution is the avoidance of litigation, and the commitment to negotiation that does not operate in the shadow of the Court. Whilst clients opting to engage in Collaborative Practice could technically choose to abandon the process at any point, the nature of Collaborative Practice is such that if they choose this option they will not be able to retain the same legal team as this would go against the initial agreement.

All negotiations are confidential during the Collaborative process, and advice is given openly to both parties during a series of meetings involving both parties, their lawyers, and usually a neutral psychologist and financial expert. Further, we find that the legal costs associated with the Collaborative process are far less than when litigants are negotiating between lawyers and/or in the Court system. As such, this form of dispute resolution may be favourable to those undergoing a divorce or separation in the current legal climate. Indeed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a 39 per cent increase in urgent applications in the Family Court, and a 23 per cent increase in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

At Nicholes Family Lawyers, our lawyers are motivated to preserve peace, enhance good communication and assist couples reach a settlement without court intervention. To help clients achieve this one of the services we proudly offer is Collaborative Practice.