New ground was broken last December in the British Virgin Islands when what is believed to be the first scheme of arrangement procedure under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (BCA) was completed.

In the scheme of arrangement Amber Petroleum Ltd (Amber) completed a successful reverse takeover of AIM-listed AfNat Resources Limited (formerly Lithic Metals and Energy Limited) (AfNat) under section 179A of the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (BCA).

Making a will is regarded by most individuals as a necessary irritant ranking in popularity somewhere below a visit to the dentist or doctor. Following the unprecedented instability in the global financial markets since 2007, “systemic” risk (posed by the potential failure of large or complex cross-border financial institutions) was identified by regulators and legislators as one of the key areas requiring better supervision, in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Tousa,[1] has received widespread attention for its near wholesale rejection of insolvency “savings clauses,” and the resulting order requiring lenders to disgorge hundreds of millions of dollars. The decision raises numerous practical problems for participants in the secondary loan and derivatives markets, and more generally for commercial lenders and borrowers.

Background

On 15 September 20091 the judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States held that Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) could not rely on Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement to suspend payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“LBSF”). Specifically, Judge Peck held that the safe harbour provisions in the US bankruptcy code protected a non-defaulting party’s contractual rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate swaps and to net termination values but did not provide a basis to withhold performance under a swap if it did not terminate.

The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

A recent application to the British Virgin Islands courts has sought to blur the lines between directors’ general duties to act for the benefit of an insolvent company’s creditors, and the statutory clawback associated with unfair preferences entered into in the twilight period prior to a company going into liquidation.

In recognition of the new BVI Commercial Court, Harneys is publishing quarterly Commercial Court case notes which summarise some of the more important judgments delivered by the Court.

Appropriation

The British Virgin Islands has opened a new Commercial Court which will specialise in cross-border commercial and insolvency matters. In two ceremonies earlier this month, the government of the BVI formally opened the court and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) for its operation and administration.

The provisions of Part IX of the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (as amended,1 the Companies Act) deal with corporate reconstructions, specifically:

1. mergers;
2. consolidations;
3. sales of assets;
4. forced redemptions of minority shareholders;
5. arrangements; and
6. provisions dealing with dissenting members.