In a major development in BVI insolvency law and practice, the BVI Commercial Court has held in Constellation Overseas Limited (BVIHC (Com) 2018/0206 – 2012), that provisional liquidation is available to facilitate a restructuring. The decision brings the British Virgin Islands broadly into line with Cayman and Bermuda, where restructuring provisional liquidations have been used to support several landmark cross-border restructurings in recent years.
In the recent decision of Alexander Pleshakov v Sky Stream Corporation and Others (Pleshakov), the BVI Court of Appeal considered the scope of its jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact made at first instance. This is the second time this year that the BVI Court of Appeal has addressed this issue.
In the recent BVI Court of Appeal decisions of Wembley and Sutton ‘disabled’ bearer shareholders were found to have a constitutional right not to be deprived of their property without compensation.
In Stanford v Akers the BVI Court of Appeal addressed standing in the context of applications under Section 273 of the Insolvency Act 2003, whereby an aggrieved person can ask the court to reverse or vary a liquidator's decision.
The liquidators of Chesterfield entered the company into a global settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank AG and Kaupthing, which included the admission of Kaupthing's claim in Chesterfield's liquidation.
Facts
First-instance decision
Court of Appeal decision
Comment
In Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited (2018) the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.
In the case of Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited [2018] the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever