On 16 December 2016 an act amending the insolvency laws applicable to financial derivatives transactions passed the Bundesrat (the second chamber of the German legislature). The new law was finalised only six months after the German Federal Court of Justice passed its landmark judgment that held a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions to be partially ineffective in the event of insolvency.

In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.

When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. On the other hand, those investors who successfully redeemed shortly before the fund’s collapse might regard the liquidators’ efforts with a degree of concern. 

When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. The judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Simon Conway and David Walker (CICA 2 of 2016), delivered on 18 November 2016, clarifies aspects of the liquidators’ power to claw back certain types of redemption payments made shortly prior to liquidation.

The current law regarding insolvency in the UAE is not a comprehensive regime, and the present framework is found across three different laws (mainly in the Commercial Companies Law, as well as the Commercial Transactions Law and the Civil Code). Additionally, companies faced harsh penalties in a bankruptcy scenario, and individuals could also face criminal sanctions and penal sentences. In the wake of low oil prices since 2015, and more companies facing distress, a new bankruptcy law drawing from international best practice will come into force in the UAE, from the beginning of 2017.

A director who breaches the obligations and duties imposed on him by his office may be liable to compensate the company for breach of duty, may incur personal liability for the company’s debts, may also face criminal or civil penalties and may be disqualified from acting as a director. The position of the company director has never been the subject of more scrutiny than it is today.

In the October 2016 edition of our dispute resolution and insolvency bulletin we will be focusing on six recent cases from the BVI Court of Appeal and BVI Commercial Court.

OVERVIEW

The cases, include:

CR&B Alert

Commercial Restructuring & Bankruptcy News

OCTOBER 2016, ISSUE 3

In This Issue:

Delaware and New York at Odds over Reclamation Claims--2

Second Circuit Sets Out Standard for Determining Scope of Free and Clear Provision in Sale Order Under Section 363(F)--2

Good Faith Filing Requirement Alive and Well in Involuntary Bankruptcy Cases--4

Unpaid Compensation Payable Exclusively in Stock Constitutes Equity, Not an Unsecured Claim--5

The office of the Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the “Registrar”) in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”) has responsibility for the incorporation, striking-off and restoration of struck off companies to the register of companies (the “Register”).

ADMINISTRATIVE STRIKE OFF OF A BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS COMPANY

The Registrar may strike a company off the Register on a number of different grounds, including:

The office of the Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the “Registrar”) in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”) has responsibility for the incorporation, striking off and restoration of companies to the Register of Companies (the “Register”). There are two restoration processes in the BVI;