Facts

A Trustee in Bankruptcy (‘TiB’) applied for committal of a bankrupt (‘B’) for contempt for repeated failure to provide financial information sought in conjunction with an application for an Income Payment Order (‘IPO’).

Facts

Mr Mikki is a photographer (‘the Bankrupt’). Bankruptcy was 2010 when pertinently he had a bank account with £1,500 in it and a car.

The £1,500 was spent, but £3,000 was subsequently paid in. When the account was frozen it again had £1,500 in it. After investigations it was determined that this money derived from post-bankruptcy income and was returned. Those investigations took some time and the Bankrupt demanded penal interest.

This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.

Key Issues

In this case, the firm was instructed by the English liquidators of Arck LLP (in liquidation) to assist in the recovery of assets misappropriated from a large number of British investors and channelled through Jersey corporate and trust structures as part of a fraudulent collective investment scheme.

The British Virgin Islands ("BVI") is a long-standing jurisdiction of choice for incorporating joint venture and private equity vehicles. In more recent years it has also become an established option for investment funds. This is due to its business-friendly and flexible main corporate statute, the BVI Business Companies Act (the "Act"), as well as the BVI’s modern regulatory and judicial regime.

Plans and Schemes of Arrangement in the British Virgin Islands

Original news

Mikki v Duncan [2016] EWCA Civ 1312, [2017] All ER (D) 157 (Feb)

To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary and compulsory winding up under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover striking off companies or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.

The mechanics of a voluntary winding up

1 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS GUERNSEY JERSEY CAPE TOWN HONG KONG LONDON SINGAPORE WWW.CAREYOLSEN.COM FEBRUARY 2017 INVESTMENT FUNDS & INSURANCE CELL COMPANIES IN GUERNSEY 2 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey INTRODUCTION This note summarises Guernsey law relating to protected and incorporated cell companies. For more detailed information on protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies please see the separate briefing notes on each.

This briefing note describes the key features of the incorporated cell company (“ICC”) and summarises the formation, structure and liquidation procedures particular to this type of company.

Key features