PFA was a Cayman Islands licensed insurance company that provided insurance and annuity products primarily to individuals and groups in South America. The principals of the company had misappropriated life insurance premiums and annuity investments.

Regulators in both the US (the SEC) and the Cayman Islands decided they needed to take enforcement action and respectively appointed an SEC receiver and a controller (subsequently liquidator) over the entity. KRyS Global was appointed liquidator in the Cayman proceedings.


The company’s books and records, assets, and potential litigation were located in both the Cayman Islands and the United States. As both the SEC receiver and KRyS Global had duties with regards to those records and assets, there was a heighted risk that both parties would litigate in an effort to realise the same assets, as well as result in a duplication of efforts and confusion for the company’s policyholders. These factors could have resulted in either a costly, inefficient, and ineffective process at the expense of the PFA’s creditors, which had already been victimised.

In order to overcome these difficulties, the SEC receiver and KRyS Global negotiated and agreed to a binding international protocol and co-operation agreement that was sanctioned by both courts in the Cayman Islands and in the United States. The agreement allocated responsibilities between the representatives in pursuit of specific assets, adjudication of claims, and in effecting distributions.

Value Added:

The SEC Receiver and KRyS Global were able to focus their limited and valuable resources in a cooperative approach that maximized asset recoveries and avoided wasting time in conflict. The result was a more orderly and efficient global administration of the company’s affairs resulting in distribution to creditors.

After this case was concluded, the Cayman Islands reformed its insolvency law. Included in the reforms is a provision requiring liquidators to consider, when a foreign representative has been appointed in another jurisdiction, whether an international protocol / cooperation agreement is appropriate.