Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.

In an era of increasing complexity in regulation globally, the BVI has carefully built a simple and clear regulatory framework that minimises the legal risk for lenders and financial markets participants dealing with BVI companies.

Legal

The BVI’s regulatory framework is structured to make the legal risk of lending or selling financial assets to a BVI entity lower than almost any other jurisdiction.

Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.

The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.

In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.

In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.

Section 97 of Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 imposes a statutory duty on every director to: (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. The test is therefore an objective one using the reasonably prudent person as a comparator (see Focus Insurance Co Ltd v Hardy [1992] Bda LR 25 which appears to suggest that an element of subjectivity may also be considered in Bermuda.

Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.

The Bermuda Commercial Court has provided guidance as to the considerations it will take into account when deciding the identity of the JPLs, further to our article on the Up Energy Group Ltd (the Company) restructuring and the circumstances in which Joint Provisional Liquidators (JPLs) will be appointed to monitor the proposed restructuring of a Be

Introduction

On September 20 2016 the BVI Commercial Court clarified whether the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 provides a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the court. The court also specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators can draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the court.