In an application to wind up a BVI company the BVI Court re-stated the rules on when a foreign judgment creates an issue estoppel. Following The Sennar [1985] 1 WLR 490 the Court found that there would be an estoppel where a foreign judgment is (1) of a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) is final and conclusive; and (3) on the merits.

In a decision of interest in a number of jurisdictions where these types of claims have been made, the BVI Commercial Court handed down judgment today in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, a BVI fund which invested in Bernard Madoff’s investment vehicle.

By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company.  Claims are most likely to be based on the following:

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 was signed into law by the President on 2 August 2011.  The Act provides for certain provisions, concerning private security services, bankruptcy and family mediation services, to come into operation on such days as the Minister for Justice and Equality, by order, appoints. All other provisions of the Act came into force on 2 August.

The Act introduces a number of important reforms across a broad range of areas, including:

First published in The Lawyer on July 18, 2011

Western economies, many With recoveries stalling in investors and creditors are ­considering carefully which jurisdictions will govern their interests in the event of insolvency and what, if anything, can be done to influence the process.

Many investment funds and other vehicles, attracted by tax-neutrality and stability, are incorporated in jurisdictions such as the ­Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, but with their managers, operations, assets and investors often dispersed globally.

Trial on preliminary issues

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

On Friday 1 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its much awaited written judgment in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees et al. The decision has far reaching consequences, not only for BVI funds, but also for all types of BVI corporate vehicles. The case directly and indirectly dealt with four major issues:-  

On 25 March 2011 the High Court delivered a judgment concluding that a notice of crystallisation served by a bank (who held fixed and floating charges) on three corporate borrowers shortly before they were placed into liquidation did not alter the order of priorities.

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: