It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.

In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.

Section 97 of Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 imposes a statutory duty on every director to: (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. The test is therefore an objective one using the reasonably prudent person as a comparator (see Focus Insurance Co Ltd v Hardy [1992] Bda LR 25 which appears to suggest that an element of subjectivity may also be considered in Bermuda.

The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

The Bermuda Commercial Court has provided guidance as to the considerations it will take into account when deciding the identity of the JPLs, further to our article on the Up Energy Group Ltd (the Company) restructuring and the circumstances in which Joint Provisional Liquidators (JPLs) will be appointed to monitor the proposed restructuring of a Be

Introduction

On September 20 2016 the BVI Commercial Court clarified whether the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 provides a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the court. The court also specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators can 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.

This guide outlines the procedure for a voluntary liquidation of a solvent Cayman Islands exempted company and the duties of its liquidator. It also sets out the process for striking an exempted company off the Register of Companies in the Cayman Islands.

Voluntary liquidation

A Cayman Islands exempted company can be wound up voluntarily:

In UVW v XYZ (27 October 2016), the BVI Court gave an important judgment in relation to the obligations of a registered agent to provide third party disclosure to assist a foreign judgment creditor trace assets. This judgment is a broadening of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It will enable a judgment creditor who has no evidence of misuse of a specific corporate structure but who can evidence a general pattern of wilfully evasive conduct by the judgment debtor, as opposed to a mere failure to pay, to obtain third party disclosure in support of asset tracing or execution.

In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.