Judges from 10 jurisdictions met in October 2016 in Singapore for the inaugural Judicial Insolvency Network Conference.

High on the agenda of the esteemed conference participants was the preparation of Draft Guidelines to provide practical assistance for Judges and insolvency practitioners alike in dealing with difficult issues which cross-border insolvencies and restructurings commonly face.

Since The Insolvency Act 2003 (the Act) was enacted, there has been some confusion as to whether it provided a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the Court. On 20 September 2016, the BVI Commercial Court clarified the position and specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators could draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the Court.

JPLs play an unheralded but crucial mediating role in Bermuda

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York may reopen a door — which many had believed was all but closed — for disgruntled creditors seeking to challenge failed leveraged buyouts (“LBOs”) as fraudulent conveyances. In In re Lyondell Chemical Co., 2016 WL 4030937 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2016), District Judge Denise Cote reinstated an intentional fraudulent conveyance claim seeking to claw back $6.3 billion in distributions made to Lyondell Chemical’s shareholders through an LBO that failed quickly and dramatically.

This is a short guide to solvent voluntary liquidations of companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is not intended as a substitute for full legal advice but more as an aide memoire to the procedures involved.

1. Why is the company being put into solvent voluntary liquidation/being "wound up"?

A BVI company generally has no limit on its duration. However, like all good things, a company may come to the end of its useful life. This may be because the assets it held have been transferred out or sold.

In a pair of decisions in 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware determined that neither the first lien notes trustee nor the second lien notes trustee of Energy Future Intermediate Holdings Corp. (“EFIH”), a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”), was entitled to receive a make-whole on the repayment of the corresponding indebtedness resulting from the acceleration of that debt in the EFH bankruptcy case.

Borrowers, agent banks, syndicate members and secondary market purchasers incur, syndicate, sell and buy bank debt on the assumption that bank debt is not a “security.” However, a June 30, 2016, opinion in the General Motors preference litigation¹shows that such an assumption may no longer be valid, at least under the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 28, 2016, Judge Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association, et al.(Adv. Proc. No. 10-03547 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed that a debtor in Chapter 11 can use a tender offer to settle claims without running afoul of the Bankruptcy Code. Although In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.is limited to its particular facts and circumstances, the decision could lead to increased use of tender offers prior to confirmation of a bankruptcy plan.

Several recent cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have created ambiguity about when distressed exchange offers violate Section 316(b) of the 1939 Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”). It appears that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using this ambiguity to challenge distressed exchange offers. The threat of litigation may give minority bondholders a powerful tool to hinder less than fully consensual out-of-court restructurings and provide them with increased leverage in negotiations.