A recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the British Virgin Islands.

KMG had filed an originating application seeking the appointment of liquidators to DPH (a company incorporated in Switzerland) and had successfully applied for:

Claims of passing off are rare in the British Virgin Islands and a recent attempt to bring a BVI action in relation to goodwill held outside the jurisdiction has failed.(1)

The claimants were Egyptian private equity investors with over $516 million in assets under management and a long, respected track record in development and management of various investment projects in the Egyptian market.

The defendants included a former employee of the claimants and the companies through which he operated.

The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the BVI.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

On 6 November 2017 the BVI Commercial Court, sitting in St Lucia, placed Sherbrooke Group Limited (Sherbrooke) into liquidation. Mark McDonald and Michael Leeds of Grant Thornton were appointed as Sherbrooke’s liquidators.

Peter Ferrer, of the British Virgin Islands office of Harneys, reviews forum shopping, Chapter 11 protection and just and equitable winding up, with an in-depth look at the Pacific Andes saga is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which to bring a claim. It is often used as a pejorative – a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship – but in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have a case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client.

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

In a previous article, Losing Momentive: A Roadmap to Higher Cramdown Interest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a

`Forum shopping' is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which a claim could be heard. It is often used as a pejorative, a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship, but, in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have the case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client. It can however lead to some fierce jurisdictional battles particularly in insolvency where the choice can be stark between debtor and creditor friendly procedures.

Traditional thinking in the private placement noteholder community has been the “model form” approach to make-whole amounts created an enforceable liquidated damages claim in the event of voluntary or involuntary acceleration by the note issuer, including upon a bankruptcy filing. That thinking has been tested in the market as a result of a number of recent decisions involving public notes where courts have interpreted the specific indenture language to deny a make-whole claim.