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.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background