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 economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.