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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.