In the October 2016 edition of our dispute resolution and insolvency bulletin we will be focusing on six recent cases from the BVI Court of Appeal and BVI Commercial Court.
OVERVIEW
The cases, include:
The office of the Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the “Registrar”) in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”) has responsibility for the incorporation, striking-off and restoration of struck off companies to the register of companies (the “Register”).
ADMINISTRATIVE STRIKE OFF OF A BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS COMPANY
The Registrar may strike a company off the Register on a number of different grounds, including:
The office of the Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the “Registrar”) in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”) has responsibility for the incorporation, striking off and restoration of companies to the Register of Companies (the “Register”). There are two restoration processes in the BVI;
Carey Olsen's Dispute Resolution Group has successfully secured orders on two separate applications under Guernsey's Protection of Investors and Company Law legislation to place two regulated entities into administration and one company into compulsory liquidation.
The Managing Partner of the firm’s Guernsey office, Advocate John Greenfield, and Senior Associate, Tim Bamford, acted for the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the "Commission") on both applications.
Our Restructuring and Insolvency team has had further significant success, recently securing the discharge of an administration order over a Guernsey Protected Cell Company to facilitate its voluntary winding up. The team, led by Guernsey based counsel David Jones and including associate Luke Sayer, acted for local insolvency practitioners Tim Le Cornu and Andrea Harris of KRyS Global.
To our knowledge this is the first time that the Royal Court of Guernsey has ordered that an administration order in Guernsey be discharged so as to facilitate a voluntary winding up.
Die aus Sicht der deutschen Volks- wirtschaft erhebliche Kapitalanlage- tätigkeit von Versicherungsunterneh- men (VU) unterliegt den aufsichts- rechtlichen Vorgaben des Versiche- rungsaufsichtsgesetzes (VAG). Im Hinblick auf die Vorgaben der euro- päischen Solvency II-Richtlinie haben sich mit Inkrafttreten des neuen VAG zum 1. Januar 2016 (VAG n.F.) Ände- rungen der Anforderungen an die Kapitalanlage von VU ergeben. Dies gibt Anlass, einen Blick auf die wichtigsten Neuerungen zu werfen.
A. Bisherige Rechtslage
(BVerfG, Beschluss vom 12.01.2016, Az. 1 BvR 3102/13)
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich per Beschluss vom 12. Januar 2016 zu der Frage geäußert, ob der Ausschluss juristischer Personen von der Bestellung als Insolvenzverwalter verfassungsgemäß ist oder nicht. Anlass war die Verfassungsbeschwer- de einer auf Insolvenzverwaltung spezialisierten Gesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, welche zuvor die Aufnahme auf die Vorauswahlliste für Insolvenzverwalter eines Amtsgerichts vergeblich vor den Zivilgerichten zu erstreiten versucht hatte.
(Federal Constitutional Court, judgment dated 12 January 2016, case ref. 1 BvR 3102/13)
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled on whether the exclusion of legal entities from being appointed as insolvency administrator is constitutional or not in its judgment dated 12 January 2016. The ruling was triggered by a constitutional complaint from a firm of lawyers specialising in insolvency administration, which had previously argued in vain before the civil courts for inclusion by a local court on its pre-selected list of insolvency administrators.
The economically significant investment activity by insurance companies is subject to the regulatory requirements of the German Insurance Supervision Act (Versiche rungsaufsichtsgesetz – VAG). With regard to the provisions of the European Solvency II Directive, changes to the requirements for capital investments of insurance companies have resulted from the new VAG which came into effect as of 01 January 2016 (VAG new). This gives us cause to take a look at the most important changes.
A. Former legal situation
Mit seinem Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2015, Az. C-594 / 14, hat der EuGH entschieden, dass die Haftung eines Geschäftsführers für verbotene Aus- zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife nach §64 GmbHG eine insolvenzrechtliche Regelung darstellt und deshalb dem Anwendungsbereich der EuInsVO unterliegt.