The BVI Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the Registrar) maintains a Register of Companies (the Register) which records the name of each company incorporated or continued under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (as amended) (the Act).
This guide examines the procedures by which the name of a company may be struck off, or restored to, the Register under the Act.
What is strike off?
JANUARY 2022 BVI | CAYMAN ISLANDS | GUERNSEY | HONG KONG | JERSEY | LONDON mourant.com 2021934/82 67 1 01 9/1 UPDATE BVI Court refuses to give effect to foreign insolvency law to override ownership rights under BVI law Update prepared by Eleanor Morgan, Jennifer Jenkins and Shane Donovan (British Virgin Islands).
In the October 2021 edition of IBA Insolvency and Restructuring International, Peter Hayden and Jonathan Moffatt explain recent decisions in the UK and the Cayman Islands on the narrowing of the rule in Prudential and its implications for shareholders and creditors considering litigation.
Introduction
The Cayman Islands' legislature has recently gazetted the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (the Amendment Bill), proposing the introduction of a new corporate restructuring process and the concept of a dedicated 'restructuring officer' into the Cayman Islands Companies Act (2021 Revision). Under the Amendment Bill, the filing of a petition for the appointment of a restructuring officer would trigger an automatic global moratorium on claims against the company, giving it the opportunity to seek to implement a restructuring.
1. Related Fund Entity filings for private funds]
On 1 September 2021, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) issued a Notice advising industry that a new Related Fund Entity (RFE) form for private funds was available for use via CIMA's Regulatory Enhanced Electronic Forms Submission (REEFS) portal.
A recent decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has confirmed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Grand Court made pursuant to section 152(1) of the Companies Act (2021) Revision to dissolve a Company following its official liquidation.
Background
The fact that more businesses have not failed is the most surprising thing about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, if you look at the fashion retail sector alone, the list of some of the high profile casualties is alarming: Arcadia Group, Bonmarché, Debenhams, DW Sports, Laura Ashley, M&Co, Monsoon, Moss Bros, Oasis and Warehouse, Peacock and Jaeger, TM Lewin and Victoria’s Secret (UK Business)… with more expected.
The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.
Introduction
Every five years or so, the insolvency profession seems to try and wrestle with the public outcry about the use of so-called pre-packs. In its simplest terms, this is where “Widget Manufacturing Limited” goes into administration, and the very next day “Widget Manufacturing 2021 Limited” is operating the same business and being owned by the same shareholders. The only crucial difference is that several key liabilities (usually owed to landlords) are left behind in the insolvent business.
The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.