In Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62, the English Court of Appeal held that a bankruptcy petition cannot be presented based on an unsatisfied foreign judgment where the foreign judgment has not been recognised in that jurisdiction. This update considers the effect that decision may have on statutory demands and applications for the appointment of liquidators based on unrecognised foreign judgments in the British Virgin Islands.

The Hierarchy of the Courts of the Eastern Caribbean

In the recent British Virgin Islands (BVI) case of Parles AS & Daniel Perner v Winsley Finance Limited (BVIHCM2022/0123, 29 March 2023), the Honourable Madam Justice Mangatal granted an application brought by two unsecured creditors for a Chabra freezing injunction against a BVI company in aid of foreign insolvency proceedings in Czechia. In this article, we look at the reasoning employed by the BVI Court in reaching its decision and consider the wider significance of the judgment to insolvency practitioners and creditors dealing with assets in the BVI.

The question of whether a British Virgin Islands Court can order the examination of foreign persons in the liquidation of BVI companies has been the subject of two recent conflicting decisions of the Commercial Division of the High Court. As such, the answer to the question is likely to remain uncertain until it has been resolved by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

The Statutory Framework

Section 284 of the Insolvency Act, 2003 provides that:

Two decisions handed down on the same day – one by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal and the other by the Commercial Division of the High Court – illustrate the approach of British Virgin Islands Courts to applications to appoint liquidators in circumstances where the subject matter of a dispute as to the existence of a debt falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

Introduction

In two relatively recent but unrelated decisions, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has provided helpful guidance in relation to how the Court ought to deal with an application for the appointment of a liquidator in circumstances where the company asserts a cross-claim in an amount exceeding the applicant's debt.

Introduction

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.