Mangatal J
<doc> IN THE GRAND FINANCIAL SEI IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND APPLICANTS AND AND AND AND AND 63X INVESTMENTS LTD 63X FUND 63X MASTER FUND MAPLES CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED BANCO BTG PACTUAL S.A. EBX INTERNATIONAL S.A. 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent 3rd Respondent 4th Respondent 5th Respondent 6th Respondent 7th Respondent IN CHAMBERS Appearances: Before: Date of Hearing: Judgment Delivered: 180529 Meridian Trust Co. Mr. G Halkerston instructed by Mr. J McGee of the Applicants to 4th Respondents The Hon. Justice Ingrid Mangatal 14 May 2018 d: 29 May 2018 Company Limited et al v Eike Fuhriken Batista et al -FSD 172 of 2016 (IM) Salomon Harris for en on behalf of the 2nd ) Receivership Ruling </doc>
<doc> Applicant
The Applica- Longbottom Ruling HEADNOTE for Joint Receivers over Cayman Companies -Ruling sought Section IIA of the Grand Court Law (2015 Revision) RULING As Mr. Gold on the basis of Company’s petition to secure a “Freezing Order introsive, not an of its Companies’ Paramount Law”). Each of the 63X Companies is a Cayman com- submissions, Mr. Halkerston indicates that both gen- is and have particular experience in Cayman appoint- sing parallel litigation in the United States. The App- pany to appoint the Receivers and that it is an appreciable risk that the Respondents will act in dis- aszewski points out in his submissions, the Applicant is alleged non-disclosure of documents on histor- ing parallel litigation in the United States. The App- is contended they have now provided, to grant a dragonia- are expansive and less reversible than the granting of an Order pany. men are well known ments when there is or icants submit that it is priate response where regard of the terms of are asking the Court, case assets, which the a remedy that is “more of an injunction” - see Stephen Gee potentially companies.
I note that allegations Freezing Or-
in my view, number of 180529 Meridian Trust Co. e. QC, Gee on Injunctions 6th Edition paragraph 16—cause irreparable damage to the Respondents, although the Applicants here make the request in circumstance, that there has been any dissipation of assets in bre- der. it is relevant to note that the proceedings in Florida Motions to dismiss are being considered. In fact, as Company Limited et al v Eike Funkken Batista et al - FSD 172 of 2016 (IM)
This course can h they are not trading such where they make no ch of the Worldwide are at a stage where a 3 Order of the United 4 Receivership Ruling 2 of 3 </doc>
<doc> States Dist made.
In my view these proce those subs proceedings.
I am of the sought at th tic Court staying disclosure ponding the outcome of the Court does have to view the disclosure obligations, through the prism of those proceedings in the lantive proceedings has been stayed. It must be re rable to the Florida proceedings. view that it is not appropriate and is unjust or inconve nts stage. Mr. Batista has now signed authority letters the Motions has been of the Respondents in IS, where disclosure in remembered that these ment to grant the relief and this can be said to be assisting originals are
I am theref to be prema Batista.
In the light no order as the 63X Company in this regard. These were provi on their way to Solomon Harris. ominded to refuse the relief sought at this time, on t future, and to allow Applicants to test the efficacy of th of the lateness of the compliance and signing of the ac to costs. ded on 4 May 2018 - I am of the basis that it appears letters signed by Mr. authority letters, I make 180529 Meridian Trust Co. CE INGRID MANGATAL GRAND COURT Company Limited et al v Eike Fuhriken Batista et al - FSD 172 of 2016 (QW) </doc>