Domestic Procedures
Reports last week of the significant increase in corporate insolvencies and voluntary liquidations in England and Wales for Q2 demonstrate the combined impact of government COVID-19 support being withdrawn, soaring energy and fuel costs, and weakening demand – and are being reflected in the nature of the instructions coming into our global jurisdictions from distressed companies across the globe.
Introduction
The current geo-political climate is contributing to the rapid rise to inflation rates in many countries around the world. Governments have reacted with an inevitable increase to interest rates to try and offer some form of counterbalance to rising costs in an effort to stymy localised, and more widespread, economic recessions.
Can directors or shareholders be required to contribute to the liquidation estate?
What liability can directors or other officers attract in respect of an insolvent company?
What categories of transaction can be avoided or set aside?
Who is responsible for seeking orders to set aside such transactions?
This Q&A on avoidance transactions is part of a series on restructuring and corporate recovery jurisdiction in the British Virgin Islands.(1)
What are the principal forms of security in the British Virgin Islands in respect of movable and immovable property?
What is the effect on secured creditors of the commencement of an insolvency procedure?
To what extent do courts assist overseas appointees (through recognition) and in what circumstances?
Are there any limitations typically imposed in respect of recognition of an overseas appointee?
What are the principal insolvency procedures for companies in the British Virgin Islands?
Are any of the procedures available on a provisional basis?
What requirements should be satisfied for the procedures to be pursued?
On Wednesday 29 April the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh issued an opinion sanctioning two schemes of arrangement proposed by Premier Oil Plc and Premier Oil UK Limited (together, Premier Oil) (the Schemes). The Court addressed multiple grounds of challenge and did so without hearing live evidence, despite disputes of fact between the parties.