Fulltext Search

Key points

  • Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

  • There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

  • The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

  • Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

  • Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

  • Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key Points

  • Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
  • Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts

International guidelines on cross-border insolvency matters have recently been adopted by the BVI courts. The Judicial Insolvency Network guidelines – drafted in 2016 by ten insolvency judges from international jurisdictions, including a BVI Commercial Court Judge – aim to create co-operation and communication between courts on cross-jurisdiction proceedings, and to minimise the time and expense involved in litigation.

The adoption of new international guidelines on cross-border insolvency matters by the BVI courts has been welcomed by Ogier insolvency law specialist Nicholas Brookes.

The Judicial Insolvency Network guidelines – drafted in 2016 by ten insolvency judges from international jurisdictions, including a BVI Commercial Court Judge – aim to create co-operation and communication between courts on cross-jurisdiction proceedings, and to minimise the time and expense involved in litigation.

Key Points 

  • Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
  • NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
  • The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met

The Facts

Key Points 

  • Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
  • No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
  • Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts