Peter Ferrer, of the British Virgin Islands office of Harneys, reviews forum shopping, Chapter 11 protection and just and equitable winding up, with an in-depth look at the Pacific Andes saga is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which to bring a claim. It is often used as a pejorative – a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship – but in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have a case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client.
Question
My client is buying a property from a receiver appointed under an equitable charge granted by a company which has become insolvent. The charge gives a receiver a power of sale and contains a power of attorney. Will the receiver be able to sign all the necessary documents to allow the transaction to proceed to completion?
Answer
(1) Timothy Crowden and (2) Carol Crowden v. QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm)
Summary
This case involved a claim in respect of negligent investment advice brought directly against the insurer of an insolvent financial adviser, pursuant to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).
The insurer successfully relied on an insolvency exclusion clause contained within the insolvent adviser’s professional indemnity policy in order to deny liability to the claimants.
Case Facts
Global Corporate Limited v Dirk Stefan Hale [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch)
Summary
A recent judgment re-iterates the importance of carefully drafting a deed of assignment when assigning claims.
In Global Corporate, the liquidators of a company assigned certain claims by way of a deed of assignment to Global Corporate Limited (the “Assignee”). The Assignee (the Applicant in this case) then brought several claims against the company’s former director and shareholder.
`Forum shopping' is the practice of choosing the most favourable jurisdiction in which a claim could be heard. It is often used as a pejorative, a form of jurisdictional gamesmanship, but, in principle, there is nothing wrong in seeking to have the case heard in the forum which is most favourable to the client. It can however lead to some fierce jurisdictional battles particularly in insolvency where the choice can be stark between debtor and creditor friendly procedures.
Re Diffraction Diamonds DMCC [2017] EWHC 1368 (Ch)
This case deals with the English Court’s jurisdiction to wind up foreign companies, on the grounds of public interest. While it does not create new law, it is a helpful review of the authorities, particularly Re Titan International Inc [1998] 1 BVLC 102 (“Titan”).
Case Facts
On May 11 2017 the British Virgin Islands adopted new guidelines for communication and cooperation between courts in cross-border insolvency matters.
This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).
The Court of Appeal (CICA) has provided further clarification and guidance to Cayman Islands insolvency professionals on issues ranging from voidable transactions, the scope of liquidators’ powers and legal professional privilege, following the publication this month of a number of decisions that had come before the Court during the November 2016 Court sitting. Set out below is a summary of the Court’s findings in 3 of the CICA decisions which may be relevant to your day to day practice.
Voidable Transactions
In this thoroughly new and groundbreaking case it was held that where a creditor has already filed a winding up petition in respect of a company: (1) not only may the directors of the company parry by themselves applying for the appointment of JPLs; but (2) they may do so even without a shareholder resolution or express provision to do so in the company’s articles of association.