Fulltext Search

In the case of 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.

FINANCIAL REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS FOCUS JUNE 7, 2018 ISSUE 22 In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal U.S., European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Practice Group/Industry website. IN THIS ISSUE Bank Prudential Regulation & Regulatory Capital ..............................................................................................

In the latest judgment regarding the DPH liquidation,(1) the BVI Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of BVI provisional liquidators in respect of a Swiss company and clarified that evidence of dissipation of assets (in the Mareva sense) may not be a pre-condition to the appointment of provisional liquidators.

Facts

MAY 23, 2018/20 FINANCIAL REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS FOCUS Proxima Nova A ExCn 35pt In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal U.S., European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website. IN THIS ISSUE AML/CTF, Sanctions and Insider Trading ..............................................................................................................

A recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the British Virgin Islands.

KMG had filed an originating application seeking the appointment of liquidators to DPH (a company incorporated in Switzerland) and had successfully applied for:

Claims of passing off are rare in the British Virgin Islands and a recent attempt to bring a BVI action in relation to goodwill held outside the jurisdiction has failed.(1)

The claimants were Egyptian private equity investors with over $516 million in assets under management and a long, respected track record in development and management of various investment projects in the Egyptian market.

The defendants included a former employee of the claimants and the companies through which he operated.

The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the BVI.

FINANCIAL REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS FOCUS APR 26, 2018 ISSUE 16/2018 In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal U.S., European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website. The latest Governance & Securities Law Focus is available here.

MAR 8, 2018 ISSUE 9/2018 FINANCIAL REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS FOCUS Proxima Nova A ExCn 35pt In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal U.S., European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website. IN THIS ISSUE AML/CTF, Sanctions and Insider Trading ..............................................................................................................

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).