Currently, the British Virgin Islands has no legislative framework for regulating third party litigation funding. Until recently, the absence of such a framework led many to believe that the rules against maintenance and champerty still operated so as in practice to prevent litigants from raising funds from third parties to prosecute or to defend claims. In Crumpler v Exential Investments Inc (BVIHC(COM) 2020/0081; 29 September 2020) Jack J clarified that third party funding arrangements were enforceable in the BVI.
Facts
Insolvency Act 2003
Comment
In the Three Arrows case,(1) the BVI Court has endorsed what is believed to be its first extra-territorial order summoning directors of a BVI company (in liquidation) to appear for private examination by joint liquidators.
Introduction
Where a British Virgin Islands company is struck off the register, its directors and members cannot carry on the company's affairs, commence or defend legal proceedings in the name of the company, or deal with the assets of the company.
Introduction
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: