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 UVW v XYZ (27 October 2016), the BVI Court gave an important judgment in relation to the obligations of a registered agent to provide third party disclosure to assist a foreign judgment creditor trace assets. This judgment is a broadening of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It will enable a judgment creditor who has no evidence of misuse of a specific corporate structure but who can evidence a general pattern of wilfully evasive conduct by the judgment debtor, as opposed to a mere failure to pay, to obtain third party disclosure in support of asset tracing or execution.
In our previous bulletin we discussed the ‘safe harbour’ model in the Government’s suggested reforms to the current insolvency laws.
This bulletin considers another of the focus questions in the Proposal Paper: the voiding of ipso facto clauses relating to insolvency events.
Background
Since The Insolvency Act 2003 (the Act) was enacted, there has been some confusion as to whether it provided a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the Court. On 20 September 2016, the BVI Commercial Court clarified the position and specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators could 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.
On 29 April 2016, the Federal Government released a Proposals Paper titled ‘Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws’.
The Government is proposing these reforms to encourage entrepreneurship and investment. It hopes to reduce the stigma and detriment around failed business ventures, while still balancing the need to protect creditors.
Introduction
Although the wishes of the majority of creditors (whether in number or by value) is an important factor in many decisions made in insolvency proceedings, the court retains discretion regarding whether a company should be placed into liquidation.
Introduction
Recently, the British Virgin Islands has seen a trend wherein debtors involved in winding-up proceedings have sought to identify what appear to be spurious disputes and then to rely on arbitration clauses in order to strike out or stay the winding-up proceedings. While this tactic could be regarded as capitalising on the wider global trend towards giving absolute primacy to arbitration agreements, it is often deployed to buy time for debtors and frustrate creditors that are legitimately seeking to wind up insolvent companies.
Where a court has ordered the winding-up of a company, a shareholder may be able to have the winding up terminated under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Relevant factors
The power of the court to terminate a winding-up is discretionary. Relevant factors to be considered, which are not exhaustive, include the following:
Insolvency law in the British Virgin Islands is almost entirely codified in the Insolvency Act 2003 and supplemented by the Insolvency Rule 2005. The Insolvency Act was modelled largely on the UK Insolvency Act 1986, but with a number of key differences. This update summarises its features.
If a director can exercise a right of set-off against a company in liquidation for a debt owed to the director or for a liability of the company to the director (which may be unascertained in amount or contingent), it may help to cancel out or significantly reduce the director’s liability to the company for insolvent trading.