`Forum shopping' is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which a claim could be heard. It is often used as a pejorative, a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship, but, in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have the case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client. It can however lead to some fierce jurisdictional battles particularly in insolvency where the choice can be stark between debtor and creditor friendly procedures.
Peter Ferrer, of the British Virgin Islands office of Harneys, reviews forum shopping, Chapter 11 protection and just and equitable winding up, with an in-depth look at the Pacific Andes saga is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which to bring a claim. It is often used as a pejorative – a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship – but in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have a case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client.
In the January 2018 edition of our dispute resolution and insolvency bulletin, we review eight cases from the BVI Commercial Court and BVI Court of Appeal from the past year. As most readers will be aware, the main non-legal news last year was that in September 2017, the British Virgin Islands were hit by category five hurricanes Irma and Maria which caused considerable devastation. The BVI Commercial Court temporarily relocated to St Lucia and impressively got back on its feet quickly in order to support the international financial services business of the BVI.
On September 20 2016 the BVI Commercial Court clarified whether the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 provides a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the court. The court also specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators can draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the court.
In the case of UVW v XYZ (27 October 2016) brought before the BVI Commercial Court, a judgment creditor was seeking court orders for the disclosure by a third party to the proceedings of information relating to a BVI company owned by the judgment debtor. The third party disclosure orders were brought against the registered agent of the BVI Company. The applicant creditor argued that there had been a pattern of behaviour by which the debtor had concealed assets using the BVI vehicle.
In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.
Introduction
Although the sum involved was small, the High Court’s decision inOne Investment and Consultancy Limited and another v Cham Poh Meng (DBS Bank Ltd, garnishee) [2016] SGHC 208 is one which would have a great impact in the area of enforcement of a judgment debt – A joint account held in the names of a judgment debtor and third parties jointly cannot be subject to attachment under a garnishee order.
In an era of increasing complexity in regulation globally, the BVI has carefully built a simple and clear regulatory framework that minimises the legal risk for lenders and financial markets participants dealing with BVI companies.
Legal
The BVI’s regulatory framework is structured to make the legal risk of lending or selling financial assets to a BVI entity lower than almost any other jurisdiction.
The BVI Commercial Court (the Honourable Justice Davis-White QC [Ag]) has recently ordered the appointment of liquidators over Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Limited, Parkmond Group Limited, and PARD Trade Limited (the “Companies”), three BVI incorporated companies forming a key part of the China Fishery Group.
The applications were unsuccessfully contested on the principal ground that the appointment of liquidators would irretrievably damage the prospects of a wider, global restructuring of the Pacific Andes Group.