The lead and tone of your front page story entitled “Hewitt bankruptcy hearing delayed till Oct. 3,” published in the Cayman Compass edition of Friday, Sept. 23, seem to suggest that the referenced court case was being unnecessarily postponed with a consequent effect of delaying justice.
Any such implication is inaccurate, as in each of the five hearings the court made orders for actions critical to advancing the proper resolution of this case:
- April 14, 2016:
Justice Mangatal made a provisional order in bankruptcy.
That entailed a hearing, fixed for June 2, for the respondent to show cause why the provisional order should be revoked.
- June 2, 2016:
Justice Mangatal made an order in accordance with the Bankruptcy Law (1997 Revision) for the petitioner to file a statement of his affairs.
It was further ordered during this hearing, in accordance with the law, that on July 21 a general meeting of the creditors of Mr. Hewitt be held at the office of the Trustee in Bankruptcy to consider matters vital to the resolution of the case.
- July 21, 2016:
The Trustee in Bankruptcy adjourned the creditors meeting scheduled for July 21 to provide for the legally mandated period for the gazettal of the notice to creditors.
- Sept. 12, 2016:
Following gazettal, the Trustee in Bankruptcy reconvened the creditors meeting on Sept. 12. (However, before the close of the meeting Mr. Hewitt asked for it to be adjourned so he could file an affidavit; counsel for the petitioning creditor agreed to the adjournment.)
The meeting was therefore adjourned to Sept. 20, when the agenda was concluded by the trustee in bankruptcy.
The trustee in bankruptcy advised the parties that she would file the report and resolution on or before Oct. 3, 2016.
As outlined above, these fixtures were necessary not only in fulfillment of the law but also in the best interest of both respondent and the petitioning creditor.
Thank you for publishing this letter to correct any impression that either the judge, the court or the trustee in bankruptcy are unnecessarily and unjustly delaying and “frustrating” the swift resolution of this case, as is suggested in the last paragraph of your news report.