As we reported in a client mailshot earlier this week, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has made important amendment to its rules. The amendments are immediately in force and deal with a number of areas including appeal procedure, costs capping and costs orders.

In an application to wind up a BVI company the BVI Court re-stated the rules on when a foreign judgment creates an issue estoppel. Following The Sennar [1985] 1 WLR 490 the Court found that there would be an estoppel where a foreign judgment is (1) of a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) is final and conclusive; and (3) on the merits.

In a decision of interest in a number of jurisdictions where these types of claims have been made, the BVI Commercial Court handed down judgment today in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, a BVI fund which invested in Bernard Madoff’s investment vehicle.

By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company.  Claims are most likely to be based on the following:

First published in The Lawyer on July 18, 2011

Western economies, many With recoveries stalling in investors and creditors are ­considering carefully which jurisdictions will govern their interests in the event of insolvency and what, if anything, can be done to influence the process.

Many investment funds and other vehicles, attracted by tax-neutrality and stability, are incorporated in jurisdictions such as the ­Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, but with their managers, operations, assets and investors often dispersed globally.

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Trial on preliminary issues

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine: