The Privy Council endorsed the Commercial Court's approach in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in staying insolvency proceedings, even when faced with a pre-existing arbitration agreement, only when a debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.
Introduction
The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings1 in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition2 requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed an application to stay the appointment of liquidators pending the outcome of an appeal against a landmark first instance decision by the BVI Commercial Court, in which it was determined that ultimate beneficial interest holders of notes are 'creditors' under the BVI Insolvency Act and so have standing to issue liquidation applications against defaulting note issuers.
Background
In a landmark decision, the BVI Commercial Court has confirmed that ultimate beneficial interest holders of notes are 'creditors' under the BVI Insolvency Act and so have standing to issue liquidation applications against defaulting note issuers.
Mourant Ozannes, working alongside Ashurst (Hong Kong) and Counsel, Peter Burgess of South Square, has secured a landmark decision in the matter of Cithara Global Multi-Strategy SPC (Cithara) v Haimen Zhongnan Investment Development (International) Co Ltd (the Company).
One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.
How does it happen?
As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.
When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).
Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?
Getting to the top