A defendant bank (“Bank”) in a fraudulent transfer suit “could not prove” its “good faith” defense for loan repayments it received after its “investigator discovered [the] fraudulent past” of the Ponzi scheme debtor’s principal but “failed to disclose that past to [the Bank’s account] manager,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Feb. 8, 2017. Meoli v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2248, *28 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2017).

The British Virgin Islands ("BVI") is a long-standing jurisdiction of choice for incorporating joint venture and private equity vehicles. In more recent years it has also become an established option for investment funds. This is due to its business-friendly and flexible main corporate statute, the BVI Business Companies Act (the "Act"), as well as the BVI’s modern regulatory and judicial regime.

Plans and Schemes of Arrangement in the British Virgin Islands

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary and compulsory winding up under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover striking off companies or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.

The mechanics of a voluntary winding up

1 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS GUERNSEY JERSEY CAPE TOWN HONG KONG LONDON SINGAPORE WWW.CAREYOLSEN.COM FEBRUARY 2017 INVESTMENT FUNDS & INSURANCE CELL COMPANIES IN GUERNSEY 2 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey INTRODUCTION This note summarises Guernsey law relating to protected and incorporated cell companies. For more detailed information on protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies please see the separate briefing notes on each.

This briefing note describes the key features of the incorporated cell company (“ICC”) and summarises the formation, structure and liquidation procedures particular to this type of company.

Key features

The BVI Commercial Court (the Honourable Justice Davis-White QC [Ag]) has recently ordered the appointment of liquidators over Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Limited, Parkmond Group Limited, and PARD Trade Limited (the “Companies”), three BVI incorporated companies forming a key part of the China Fishery Group.

The applications were unsuccessfully contested on the principal ground that the appointment of liquidators would irretrievably damage the prospects of a wider, global restructuring of the Pacific Andes Group.

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary winding up and striking off under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover compulsory winding up or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.

Voluntary Winding Up

On Jan. 17, 2017, in a closely watched dispute surrounding Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp. (the “Decision”).[1] In a 2-1 ruling reversing the District Court,[2] the Court of Appeals construed Section 316(b) narrowly, holding that it only prohibits “non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms” and does not protect noteholders’ practical ability to receive payment.[3]

“Transaction fees are part of the standard, negotiated base compensation for the investment banker,” held the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 16, 2016. In re Relativity Fashion, LLC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4339, *10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (Wiles, B.J.). The court denied objections to the transaction fees sought by two investment bankers, P and H, ruling that the objecting parties (a fee examiner, the debtor and a secured lender) had no right under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 328(a) to challenge the transaction fees. Id. at *25.

An undersecured mortgagee’s “release of [its entire underlying claim] was value obtained ‘in exchange for’ the [pre-bankruptcy] sale of the [debtor’s] property,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Dec. 6, 2016. In re Expert South Tulsa LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21704, at *11 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2016). The Tenth Circuit flatly rejected the debtor’s attempt “to set aside as a fraudulent transfer its own sale of real estate that was encumbered by a mortgage far exceeding the sale price.” Id. at *1.