In a decision of interest in a number of jurisdictions where these types of claims have been made, the BVI Commercial Court handed down judgment today in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, a BVI fund which invested in Bernard Madoff’s investment vehicle.

In a decision that may have implications for holders of community development district bonds and other similar “dirt bonds,” a Florida bankruptcy court has ruled that holders of community development district bonds do not always have plan voting rights when the underlying developer — as opposed to the development district itself — is the bankruptcy debtor.

Following California-based solar manufacturer Solyndra’s announcement August 31 that it intends to file for bankruptcy, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-TX) requested more documents from the White House regarding the Department of Energy’s $535 million loan guarantee to the company, the first to be awarded in September 2009. The bankruptcy is likely to intensify congressional criticism of the agency’s loan guarantee program and other renewable energy subsidies.

By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company.  Claims are most likely to be based on the following:

First published in The Lawyer on July 18, 2011

Western economies, many With recoveries stalling in investors and creditors are ­considering carefully which jurisdictions will govern their interests in the event of insolvency and what, if anything, can be done to influence the process.

Many investment funds and other vehicles, attracted by tax-neutrality and stability, are incorporated in jurisdictions such as the ­Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, but with their managers, operations, assets and investors often dispersed globally.

Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

In a decision that may have significant practical implications to the practice of bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared, on constitutional grounds, that a bankruptcy court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a debtor’s state law counterclaims, thus considerably limiting the ability of the bankruptcy court to fully and finally adjudicate claims in a bankruptcy case. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179 (June 23, 2011).

Trial on preliminary issues

On Friday 1 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its much awaited written judgment in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees et al. The decision has far reaching consequences, not only for BVI funds, but also for all types of BVI corporate vehicles. The case directly and indirectly dealt with four major issues:-  

In Yeung Kwok Mung v The Attorney General and the Financial Services Commission, BVIHCM 2011/0002 and Dedyson Enterprises Limited v Registrar of Corporate Affairs, BVIHCM 2011/0008, the BVI High Court Commercial Division addressed the principles applying to restoration applications under section 43 of the BVI Business Companies Act (the “BC Act”). The key principles emerge from the decisions: