In the recent BVI Court of Appeal decisions of Wembley and Sutton ‘disabled’ bearer shareholders were found to have a constitutional right not to be deprived of their property without compensation.
On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.
In Stanford v Akers the BVI Court of Appeal addressed standing in the context of applications under Section 273 of the Insolvency Act 2003, whereby an aggrieved person can ask the court to reverse or vary a liquidator's decision.
The liquidators of Chesterfield entered the company into a global settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank AG and Kaupthing, which included the admission of Kaupthing's claim in Chesterfield's liquidation.
The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.
Facts
First-instance decision
Court of Appeal decision
Comment
In Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited (2018) the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.
On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.
In separate but related proceedings, the BVI courts have permitted an applicant to inspect documentation relating to the liquidation of certain BVI companies.
In Robert Tchenguiz v Rawlinson & Hunter Trustee SA (the TFT Trust claim) Tchenguiz sought delivery of all proof of debt and claim documentation submitted by the defendant trustees to the joint liquidators in the liquidation of the companies.
Grant Thornton were appointed as receivers over a BVI company under Section 43 of the Arbitration Act 2013 to preserve the value of the company pending the determination of foreign arbitration proceedings. The defendant in the arbitration owned the shares of the BVI Company.
On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.
When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).