Corporate insolvency in BVI is governed by the Insolvency Act, 2003 (as amended) and the Insolvency Rules, 2005 (as amended). These laws are closely based on the English Insolvency Act 1986. There are a number of insolvency regimes available.
In Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made a supervision order in respect of three funds in voluntary liquidation, following applications by certain aggrieved investors and the joint voluntary liquidators, and over the objections of the investment manager.
Two broad themes are currently emerging in relation to European private equity real estate financing.
First, market commentary has noted that €150 billion of this finance is due to mature by 2025 – the "wall of credit".
In the recent Cayman Islands case of Re In the Matter of E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Limited[1], dealing with creditors' schemes of arrangement, Justice Segal gave a helpful decision that provided judicial clarity on, among other matters, the potential impact of the recent sanctions regimes in the US, UK and Europe on the scheme, and the international effectiveness of the scheme.
山东胜通集团股份有限公司（以下简称“胜通集团”）债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一，相关中介机构均被行政处罚，备受资本市场关注。日前，青岛市中级人民法院（下称“青岛中院”）对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。
本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例，一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞：（1）新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息；（2）全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失；（3）充分考察债券价格、交易量变化，突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日；（4）创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场，应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。
该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定，标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外，该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定，进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践，积累了宝贵经验，具有相当的前沿性和示范性。
In BVIHC(COM) 2022/0119, Russell Crumpler and Christopher Farmer as Joint Liquidators of Three Arrows Capital Ltd (in liquidation) -and- (1) Zhu Su (2) Kyle Davies
The BVI Court has endorsed what is believed to be its first extra-territorial order summoning directors of a BVI company (in liquidation) to appear for private examination by joint liquidators.
中伦观点
引言
在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。
模拟案例引入
2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。
In the current economic environment, directors will be fully focussed on avoiding any breach of their fiduciary duties, particularly if they are directors of companies experiencing or at risk of financial distress.
This client briefing provides a general overview of the duties of directors of Guernsey companies in these circumstances and is not comprehensive. We recommend that clients obtain specific legal advice in relation to any individual matter which may concern them.
Who are the Directors?
Introduction
Where a British Virgin Islands company is struck off the register, its directors and members cannot carry on the company's affairs, commence or defend legal proceedings in the name of the company, or deal with the assets of the company.