This Regulatory Update provides a snapshot of the key legal developments in the BVI and the Cayman Islands over the last quarter – including amendments to BVI business company fees, the introduction of the BVI Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, and an update on the list of director names which is now publicly available in the BVI. It also contains a reminder of the January 2023 filing deadlines in the Cayman Islands, amendments to the Cayman LLC legislation and details of the highest possible rating given to the Cayman Islands by OECD for effectiveness of AEOI regime.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has issued its first judgment appointing Restructuring Officers under the new section 91B of the Cayman Islands Companies Act, which came into force on 31 August 2022.

Introduction

Amendments to Guernsey's corporate insolvency legislation give liquidators more investigative powers and permit liquidators and administrators to set aside transactions at undervalue.

One of the most powerful investigative weapons in any liquidator's armoury is the ability to compel the production from third parties of information and documents regarding the affairs of the company. Until recently, the precise scope of the liquidator's ability to seek production of such information or documents in Guernsey has been uncertain, relying on ill-defined common law powers.

The Royal Court in Guernsey will soon be able to wind up foreign companies.

Recent changes to Guernsey's insolvency regime will mean that, for the first time, foreign companies can be compulsorily wound up in Guernsey.

Long-awaited amendments to Guernsey's corporate insolvency legislation will come into force on 1 January 2023.

Introduced by the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, the provisions are aimed at further improving and updating Guernsey's corporate insolvency regime. The amendments stem from a wide-ranging consultation finalised in 2017 and represent the most significant development of Guernsey's insolvency law since 2008.

The amendments introduce a number of key changes to the law:

Liquidation

Commercial insolvency can affect stakeholders located in multiple jurisdictions and possessing diverse legal rights. A recent notable trend in Canadian insolvency law is the centralization in insolvency proceedings, where courts have recognized that an effective restructuring of an insolvent business may depend on the centralization of stakeholder claims in a single proceeding. This applies even when such an approach would be inconsistent with the parties’ contractual rights, statutory laws or Canada’s federal structure outside of the insolvency context.

In the recent judgement of In the matter of SPARC Group Limited (en désastre) [2022] JRC 194 (SPARC Group), the Royal Court of Jersey considered the appropriate test for the making of a disqualification order against a director, with the stark nature of the facts justifying a lengthy term of disqualification.

Background 

The application for a disqualification order was made by the Viscount, in respect of Andrew Jeremy Mills (Mr Mills), who was the sole director of SPARC Group Limited (the Company), a property development business. 

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

A summary winding up is the procedure used to wind up a solvent Jersey company under the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the 1991 Law). 

This guide examines the procedure for carrying out a summary winding up. 

Steps

The steps necessary to carry out a summary winding up are as follows:

In the recent case of Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (Peace River), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) clarified the circumstances in which an otherwise valid arbitration agreement may be held to be inoperative in the context of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA).

BACKGROUND