The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
Recent developments
There is something positively Dickensian when looking at the anti-deprivation rule (the "rule") and images come up of scribes working in dark and dismal rooms scratching their quills by dim candle light. Indeed, the rule dates back to the nineteenth century and many lawyers would be hard-pressed to explain it even if they are able to grasp the contradictions and fine distinctions thrown up by the old cases. In essence, the rule provides that a contractual provision is void if it provides for the transfer of an asset from the owner to a third party upon the insolvency of the owner.
On 16 September 2011 judgment was handed down by the BVI Commercial Court in a number of cases that have been brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Fairfield”), a "feeder fund" into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities Limited (“BLMIS”), against a number of investors that historically redeemed out of the fund (the "Fairfield judgment"). Subject to any appeal, the Fairfield judgment should put an end to the liquidators’ claims in the BVI.
The British Virgin Islands Commercial Court has recently delivered a decision in Western Union International Limited v Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd which addresses the issue of when during the redemption process a redeeming investor becomes a creditor of the fund and is therefore entitled to apply for the appointment of a liquidator.
The British Virgin Island’s Commercial Court has recently delivered a decision in Western Union International Limited v Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd which addresses the issue of when during the redemption process a redeeming investor becomes a creditor of the fund and is therefore entitled to apply for the appointment of a liquidator.