The Privy Council has recently upheld a BVI judgment refusing stay of a winding up petition in favour of arbitration. The recent Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd¹ Privy Council decision provides much needed clarity on the exercise of the Court’s discretion to wind up a company where the debt is not disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and is subject to an arbitration clause.

Russell Crumpler & Christopher Farmer (as Joint Liquidators of Three Arrows Capital Ltd (in Liquidation)) v Three Arrows Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) and BVIHC (Com) 2022/0119 (unreported 26 July 2023)

In the recent decision of Greig William Alexander Mitchell & Ors v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber & Ors[2023] EWHC 364 (Ch), the English High Court was required to consider the question of what duties (if any) a director owes to a BVI company post-liquidation; in particular in light of section 175(1)(b) of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 (hereinafter, the Act) which expressly provides that upon liquidation “the directors and other officers of the company remain in office, but they cease to have any powers, functions or duties

Inflationary pressures and increasing interest rates are expected to continue to have a negative impact on the global economy during 2023. In this article we consider restructuring options under BVI law available to companies in or approaching financial difficulties, when a BVI company will be considered to be insolvent, the duties of directors of financially distressed or insolvent BVI companies and practical steps and considerations for directors where a BVI company may be approaching insolvency.

Restructuring Options and Creditor Arrangements

On 5 October 2022 the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its “momentous” decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others¹. The case addresses issues of ‘‘considerable practical importance to the management of companies’’, in particular directors’ duties during insolvency or the onset of insolvency.

Trademark licensees that file for bankruptcy protection face uncertainty concerning their ability to continue using trademarks that are crucial to their businesses. Some of this stems from an unsettled issue in the courts as to whether a licensee can assume a trademark license without the licensor’s consent. In In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., 2015 BL 44152 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 20, 2015), a Delaware bankruptcy court reaffirmed that the ongoing controversy surrounding the “actual” versus “hypothetical” test for assumption of a trademark license has not abated.

A debtor's decision to assume or reject an executory contract is typically given deferential treatment by bankruptcy courts under a "business judgment" standard. Certain types of nondebtor parties to such contracts, however, have been afforded special protections. For example, in 1988, Congress added section 365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code, granting some intellectual property licensees the right to continued use of licensed property, notwithstanding a debtor's rejection of the underlying license agreement.