Introduction
Although the wishes of the majority of creditors (whether in number or by value) is an important factor in many decisions made in insolvency proceedings, the court retains discretion regarding whether a company should be placed into liquidation.
Introduction
The British Virgin Islands' reputation as the leading offshore jurisdiction is well earned and it is dedicated to maintaining its status as a creditor-friendly and commercially flexible jurisdiction. The developments of 2015 are the latest example of its evolution as it continues to meet the needs of the global financial community. The following are the key developments to BVI law that are most likely to interest lenders and borrowers.
Key Points:
In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.
The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:
Key Points:
A Senate Economics References Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth enact uniform national security of payment legislation, albeit with a target of around 2018 for implementation.
Security of payment (SOP) reform discussion papers were released by the Queensland and New South Wales Governments in the run up to Christmas. That timing happened to coincide with the publication by the Senate Economics References Committee of its report "'I just want to be paid': Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry".
Introduction
Recently, the British Virgin Islands has seen a trend wherein debtors involved in winding-up proceedings have sought to identify what appear to be spurious disputes and then to rely on arbitration clauses in order to strike out or stay the winding-up proceedings. While this tactic could be regarded as capitalising on the wider global trend towards giving absolute primacy to arbitration agreements, it is often deployed to buy time for debtors and frustrate creditors that are legitimately seeking to wind up insolvent companies.
Key Points:
Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.
Key Points:
You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.
The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.
However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.
Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.
The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.
It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes:
Insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is principally regulated by the Companies Law (2013) and the Companies Winding Up Rules 2008, which are supplemented by a wide body of case law. The following guidance is a summary only.
Under Cayman law, a company may be wound up on the basis of insolvency if it cannot pay its debts as they fall due. A company is treated as unable to pay its debts if: