Western Union v Reserve International The BVI Commercial Court, which was established last May, has handed down an important decision on the status of a redeemed shareholder and the application of Section 197 of the Insolvency Act 2003 to the investor’s status. In summary, the redeemed shareholder was viewed as an unsecured creditor and, as such, able to petition for the liquidation of the company in which they were previously a shareholder and to rank alongside other, third party, unsecured creditors.

The United States’ Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has recognised the liquidation of a Cayman company, Saad Investments Finance Company (No5) Limited (“SIFCO5”) (an SPV established to operate as an investment company), as a “foreign main proceeding” under Chapter 15 of the United States’ Bankruptcy Code.

Recognition of the liquidation as foreign main proceedings provides for an automatic stay of proceedings with respect to any assets of SIFCO5 within the United States, amongst other things.

Background

Over the past year the Courts in Scotland have been tightening up their procedures in relation to the granting of extensions in administration. This note sets out the various issues that have arisen and considers the best ways to ensure that applications of this type proceed without unnecessary costs.

In the current economic climate, landlords are having to deal more frequently with tenants who are in administration. Where the administrators of the tenant are using the property for the purposes of the administration, the moratorium on forfeiture and irritancy proceedings that applies in administrations means that the landlords are unlikely to be able to recover the property in order to relet it.

New ground was broken last December in the British Virgin Islands when what is believed to be the first scheme of arrangement procedure under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (BCA) was completed.

In the scheme of arrangement Amber Petroleum Ltd (Amber) completed a successful reverse takeover of AIM-listed AfNat Resources Limited (formerly Lithic Metals and Energy Limited) (AfNat) under section 179A of the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (BCA).

It is not uncommon for companies, often property related joint ventures or single purpose vehicles, to be incorporated abroad for tax reasons but carry on much of their business in Scotland or elsewhere in the U.K. This can result in difficulties when determining where to initiate insolvency proceedings.

On 15 September 20091 the judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States held that Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) could not rely on Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement to suspend payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“LBSF”). Specifically, Judge Peck held that the safe harbour provisions in the US bankruptcy code protected a non-defaulting party’s contractual rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate swaps and to net termination values but did not provide a basis to withhold performance under a swap if it did not terminate.

The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

Background

The law in relation to landlord's hypothec underwent significant changes on 1 April 2008 when the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 abolished sequestration for rent and instead provided that the hypothec was to rank as a security in an insolvency procedure.

Since 1 April 2008 certain issues have arisen out of ambiguities in the legislation. These issues have become apparent particularly in administrations. This note looks at: