The Royal Court of Jersey was recently required to consider its approach when a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in a foreign jurisdiction (the “Trustee”), whose appointment has been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who has been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, is later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes.

In an important judgment published last week, the Royal Court of Jersey has provided guidance to trustees and other holders of fiduciary powers in relation to the exercise of powers when a trust is considered to be “insolvent”. Counsel in the case was unable to find any relevant authority on this subject in any other trusts jurisdiction, so this may well be one of the first cases to deal with this issue.

The recent English judgment of System Building Services Group Limited¹ is an important decision for directors of offshore companies in 'soft touch' provisional liquidation, and highlights the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of the order appointing provisional liquidators for the purposes of ascertaining the scope of directors’ duties that apply during the course of their post-appointment restructuring efforts.

With the States of Guernsey's approval yesterday of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the "Ordinance"), Guernsey took a step towards further enhancing its reputation as a robust jurisdiction for restructuring and insolvency.

On 24 October 2012 the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance S.A. [2012] UKSC 46, reversing the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal which had significantly altered the landscape of cross-border insolvency.

Alexandra Vinogradova v (1) Elena Vinogradova, (2) Sergey Vinogradov (BVIHCMAP 2018/052)

Service area / Restructuring and Insolvency

Location / British Virgin Islands

Date / February 2019

This article considers how to challenge an act, omission or decision of an office-holder.

The right to bring a challenge derives from Section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003, which provides:

A person aggrieved by an act, omission or decision of an office holder may apply to the Court and the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the act, omission or decision of the office holder.