Trial on preliminary issues

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:-  

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.

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:-

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.  

There continues to be numerous issues surrounding the “creditor/investor” debate in fund’s litigation. There have been a number of cases of particular note. First of all Citco Global v Y2K Finance where a winding up petition was brought on two basis. First of all, alleged improper redemption payments made by the fund prior to the suspension of redemptions.

Western Union v Reserve International The BVI Commercial Court, which was established last May, has handed down an important decision on the status of a redeemed shareholder and the application of Section 197 of the Insolvency Act 2003 to the investor’s status. In summary, the redeemed shareholder was viewed as an unsecured creditor and, as such, able to petition for the liquidation of the company in which they were previously a shareholder and to rank alongside other, third party, unsecured creditors.

The United States’ Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has recognised the liquidation of a Cayman company, Saad Investments Finance Company (No5) Limited (“SIFCO5”) (an SPV established to operate as an investment company), as a “foreign main proceeding” under Chapter 15 of the United States’ Bankruptcy Code.

Recognition of the liquidation as foreign main proceedings provides for an automatic stay of proceedings with respect to any assets of SIFCO5 within the United States, amongst other things.