The last decade has exposed the bankruptcy courts across the globe to a large volume of international work, and with that experience in mind, the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) held its inaugural meeting in Singapore in late 2016. Its intent was to formulate a set of guidelines (theGuidelines) that would promote cooperation between Courts. Sitting alongside common law and legislative cross-border provisions, the Guidelines are a practical code to enhance some of the most successful cross-border initiatives of recent years.

In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.

On September 20 2016 the BVI Commercial Court clarified whether the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 provides a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the court. The court also specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators can draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the court.

In UVW v XYZ (27 October 2016), the BVI Court gave an important judgment in relation to the obligations of a registered agent to provide third party disclosure to assist a foreign judgment creditor trace assets. This judgment is a broadening of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It will enable a judgment creditor who has no evidence of misuse of a specific corporate structure but who can evidence a general pattern of wilfully evasive conduct by the judgment debtor, as opposed to a mere failure to pay, to obtain third party disclosure in support of asset tracing or execution.

Since The Insolvency Act 2003 (the Act) was enacted, there has been some confusion as to whether it provided a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the Court. On 20 September 2016, the BVI Commercial Court clarified the position and specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators could draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the Court.

There were four substantive civil decision released this week. The first, Sturino v. Crown Capital Corporation is a priority dispute in the receivership context. The second, Iroquois Falls Power Corporation v. Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation involved a motion to stay a Superior Court order pending the determination of a leave application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (the stay was denied). The third, Silva v.

Hello,

Hello everyone,

The Court of Appeal has released a variety of cases this week dealing with such topics as wrongful dismissal, bankruptcy and insolvency, pensions, real estate, and residential landlord and tenant. The most notable decision by far this week is the Groia v. The Law Society of Upper Canada decision in which the court dismissed the member’s appeal from his conviction for professional misconduct. Apparently, according to the Toronto Star, Mr. Groia will be seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so this long-running saga is not over yet.

Hello everyone,

The Court of Appeal had a busy week and released a number of civil decisions, many of which were procedural in nature – extension of time, leave to appeal, limitation periods, Rule 21. One of these procedural decisions was in the Nortel case, in which the court denied leave to appeal Justice Newbould’s trial decision, apparently bringing the matter substantially closer to a conclusion.

Have a nice weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos

Civil Decisions

Hello everyone.

Except for a brief addendum to an order made in a criminal matter, the Court of Appeal only released civil law decisions this week, which is rare. Topics covered included whether or not leave to appeal a vesting order made on a receivership sale under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is required (it is), an ironic case in which a lawyer initially resisted a professional negligence claim for missing a limitation period by arguing the limitation period had been missed (nice try), insurance law and adjournments.