What categories of transaction can be avoided or set aside?
Who is responsible for seeking orders to set aside such transactions?
This Q&A on avoidance transactions is part of a series on restructuring and corporate recovery jurisdiction in the British Virgin Islands.(1)
What are the principal forms of security in the British Virgin Islands in respect of movable and immovable property?
What is the effect on secured creditors of the commencement of an insolvency procedure?
In relation to a secured party enforcing its rights under a mortgage or charge of shares in a BVI company, the secured party will typically exercise its rights under BVI law to sell the shares or to appoint a receiver in respect of them. Such rights may generally only be exercised after a default has occurred and has continued (without rectification for 14 days following notice of the default) for a period of at least 30 days. These time periods can be shortened by contractual agreement in the relevant security document.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently rejected a borrower’s objections to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the borrower’s claim objection as it was ultimately based on the alleged impropriety of the creditor’s claim from a prior bankruptcy.
A copy of the opinion in BVS Construction v. Prosperity Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling denying a borrower’s motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure against him and confirming the judicial sale of the borrower’s property.
To what extent do courts assist overseas appointees (through recognition) and in what circumstances?
Are there any limitations typically imposed in respect of recognition of an overseas appointee?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a debtor’s appeal of a sale order was statutorily mooted by Subsection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that: (1) while the Bankruptcy Code bars relief for an appeal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), it does not defeat jurisdiction; and (2) Subsection 363(m) applies to appeals from any sale authorized by the bankruptcy court, not just those properly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code.