There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

In Yeung Kwok Mung v The Attorney General and the Financial Services Commission, BVIHCM 2011/0002 and Dedyson Enterprises Limited v Registrar of Corporate Affairs, BVIHCM 2011/0008, the BVI High Court Commercial Division addressed the principles applying to restoration applications under section 43 of the BVI Business Companies Act (the “BC Act”). The key principles emerge from the decisions:

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 much awaited EAT decision inOTG Ltd v Barke and others (formerlyOlds v Late Editions Ltd) was delivered on 16 February. As expected, the EAT has taken the view that an administration cannot amount to “bankruptcy” or “analogous insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of Regulation 8(7) of TUPE. So, on a sale by an administrator (even in a pre-pack administration) TUPE will apply.

In more detail

The full force of TUPE is relaxed in relation to insolvent transfers as follows:

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:-

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

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.  

The case of Poulton v Ministry of Justice was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. The Court decided that a trustee in bankruptcy was left without a remedy against the Court Service when a bankrupt's estate suffered loss following an oversight by the Court Service to notify the Land Registry that a bankruptcy petition had been presented (as it is required to do by rule 6.13 of the Insolvency Rules 1986).

The background

In Griffi n v UHY Hacker Young & Partners1 the court dismissed an application for summary judgment on the basis of the ex turpi causa (or illegality) defence, and made a number of observations as to uncertainties in the law as it stands.