The recent decision in Pacific China Holdings Limited v Grand Pacific Holdings Limited, BVIHCV 2009/389 sets out the view of the BVI Commercial Court as to who, if anyone, should be responsible for the remuneration of liquidators where a liquidation order is set aside on appeal.

• In Irving H. Picard v Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, BVIHCV 0140/2010, the trustee appointed in the liquidation of the business of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Picard” and “BLMIS”) sought, amongst other things, (i) recognition in the BVI as a foreign representative; (ii) an entitlement to apply to the BVI Court for orders in aid of the foreign proceeding; and (iii) an entitlement to require any person to deliver up to him any property of BLMIS.
• Bannister J.

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

Introduction

Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.

Background

Parent company guarantees and performance bonds are typically used in the construction and engineering industries to provide a developer with some security in the event that the contractor breaches the building or engineering contract or, in some circumstances, upon the contractor's insolvency.

In the current economic climate, contractor default is, unfortunately, even more prevalent in the construction and engineering industries, and so the issues surrounding parent company guarantees and performance bonds are very much in focus for developers.

Yesterday, the ECSC Court of Appeal set aside the winding up order made in the case of Westford Special Situations Fund Ltd. v. Barfield Nominees Limited and another, and dismissed the Joint Liquidators appointed over the fund.

Westford was put into liquidation earlier this year by shareholders whose application was based on their entitlement to unpaid redemption proceeds. At first instance the application was allowed and Joint Liquidators were appointed over the Fund on two grounds:-

Introduction

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS  

Q1. Is it possible to appoint a receiver over assets which have been charged by a British Virgin Islands (‘BVI’) company (a ‘Company’) under a security document?

A1. Yes, provided that the security interest which has been granted by the Company to the beneficiary (the ‘mortgagee’) over the Company’s assets allows the mortgagee to appoint a receiver. Appointing a receiver is probably the most common way of enforcing security interests granted by Companies.  

In times of economic uncertainty, when the prospect of insolvency is prevalent, contracting parties need, more than ever, to be aware of issues that could have an unanticipated effect on their position. The existence of Retention of Title (RoT) clauses in contracts, particularly in the construction context, and the effect of the relevant legislation, need to be considered carefully.

There continues to be numerous issues surrounding the “creditor/investor” debate in fund’s litigation. There have been a number of cases of particular note. First of all Citco Global v Y2K Finance where a winding up petition was brought on two basis. First of all, alleged improper redemption payments made by the fund prior to the suspension of redemptions.