Recent Events

The federal district court in New Jersey recently denied an appeal by maritime creditors of Hanjin to lift bankruptcy protections and allow arrest of Hanjin's vessels in and near U.S. ports. The federal district court judge agreed with the bankruptcy judge's grant of blanket protection to Hanjin and directed creditors of Hanjin to file claims in the Korean bankruptcy proceeding. Those claims are now due by October 25, 2016 in the Korean proceedings, according to an amended order issued by the Korean judge.

A number of towage and bunker suppliers in the Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. chapter 15 case have requested the intervention of a district court judge to clarify whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has authority to "effectively extinguish[] . . . maritime liens" on chartered vessels. The bankruptcy judge has acted to try to preserve Hanjin's assets and ability to continue its business, as he should do. The case concerns roughly $14 billion worth of cargo afloat or held up in container yards across the world. At least 10 vessels are known to be steaming toward U.S.

This past weekend, Hanjin vessels commenced unloading operations on the U.S. West Coast for the first time since Hanjin filed its bankruptcy petition with the Seoul Central District Court in Korea. Vessels have also been reportedly unloading in Japanese and Canadian ports. There is an obvious overriding public interest in having the many millions of dollars worth of cargo resume moving to its various destinations.

Yesterday afternoon in Newark, New Jersey, Judge John K. Sherwood of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.'s request to recognize its Korean bankruptcy case and to provide U.S. bankruptcy protection to its assets and operations within the United States. However, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's protection is subject to another hearing on Friday to sort out what arrangements can be made among the various stakeholders.

The Wall Street Journal has recently observed that if Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. fails in its attempts to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy proceedings in Korea, it would represent the largest container shipping company to date to collapse. In the meantime, its creditors have apparently been active in Chinese, Singaporean, and American ports.

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.

After the decision of the Privy Council in April 2014, the Fairfield Sentry saga continued recently with the new judgment of Justice Leon concerning the status of related US Bankruptcy Court proceedings.

Facts

Introduction

Although the wishes of the majority of creditors (whether in number or by value) is an important factor in many decisions made in insolvency proceedings, the court retains discretion regarding whether a company should be placed into liquidation.

Introduction

The British Virgin Islands' reputation as the leading offshore jurisdiction is well earned and it is dedicated to maintaining its status as a creditor-friendly and commercially flexible jurisdiction. The developments of 2015 are the latest example of its evolution as it continues to meet the needs of the global financial community. The following are the key developments to BVI law that are most likely to interest lenders and borrowers.

Introduction

Recently, the British Virgin Islands has seen a trend wherein debtors involved in winding-up proceedings have sought to identify what appear to be spurious disputes and then to rely on arbitration clauses in order to strike out or stay the winding-up proceedings. While this tactic could be regarded as capitalising on the wider global trend towards giving absolute primacy to arbitration agreements, it is often deployed to buy time for debtors and frustrate creditors that are legitimately seeking to wind up insolvent companies.