Fulltext Search

Grant Thornton were appointed as receivers over a BVI company under Section 43 of the Arbitration Act 2013 to preserve the value of the company pending the determination of foreign arbitration proceedings. The defendant in the arbitration owned the shares of the BVI Company.

In the latest judgment regarding the DPH liquidation,(1) the BVI Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of BVI provisional liquidators in respect of a Swiss company and clarified that evidence of dissipation of assets (in the Mareva sense) may not be a pre-condition to the appointment of provisional liquidators.

Facts

A recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the British Virgin Islands.

KMG had filed an originating application seeking the appointment of liquidators to DPH (a company incorporated in Switzerland) and had successfully applied for:

Claims of passing off are rare in the British Virgin Islands and a recent attempt to bring a BVI action in relation to goodwill held outside the jurisdiction has failed.(1)

The claimants were Egyptian private equity investors with over $516 million in assets under management and a long, respected track record in development and management of various investment projects in the Egyptian market.

The defendants included a former employee of the claimants and the companies through which he operated.

The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the BVI.

(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

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer