Sam Bankman-Fried is scheduled to be tried on eight charges starting on 3 October 2023, and US District Judge Lewis Kaplan has allowed for a second trial on 11 March 2024 on a further five charges that include bribing Chinese officials and committing financial fraud. The charges centre around the alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud crypto investors and customers in FTX and Alameda Research.
The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings1 in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition2 requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.
It has been an interesting year-to-date in the Asia Pacific1 Region, particularly in the Mainland2 and Hong Kong3 as the Region has pivoted from COVID-zero to reopening its borders to the world. Given the number of larger scale Mainland property-related restructurings that were promulgated during the pandemic it is fair to say that at least amongst some in the profession, there were great (restructuring) expectations of 2023. This next wave of restructurings has not yet eventuated. Why?
Asia restructuring considerations & observations
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 increasing rates of insolvencies in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) following the COVID-19 pandemic is continuing at a high rate, and England and Wales have seen the highest rates of insolvencies since 2009. Compared with the second quarter of 2022, the total of registered company insolvencies has increased by 13%. Compared with the first quarter of 2023, the rate of insolvencies has increased by 9%.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed an application to stay the appointment of liquidators pending the outcome of an appeal against a landmark first instance decision by the BVI Commercial Court, in which it was determined that ultimate beneficial interest holders of notes are 'creditors' under the BVI Insolvency Act and so have standing to issue liquidation applications against defaulting note issuers.
Background
Five years after the collapse of construction company giant, Carillion PLC, its former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Zafar Khan has been disqualified from acting as a company director, or being concerned in its management, for 11 years. This is just 4 years short of the maximum period of 15 years, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations against him. The Insolvency Service accepted an undertaking from Mr Khan in settlement of its action against him.
In a landmark decision, the BVI Commercial Court has confirmed that ultimate beneficial interest holders of notes are 'creditors' under the BVI Insolvency Act and so have standing to issue liquidation applications against defaulting note issuers.
Mourant Ozannes, working alongside Ashurst (Hong Kong) and Counsel, Peter Burgess of South Square, has secured a landmark decision in the matter of Cithara Global Multi-Strategy SPC (Cithara) v Haimen Zhongnan Investment Development (International) Co Ltd (the Company).
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:
What makes a charge a fixed or floating security and why is this distinction important? The characteristics of a floating charge are long-established, but how does a lender ensure that valuable capital assets, i.e. investment properties, stocks, and bonds, of a borrowing company, are subject to valid fixed charge security?