This article sets out the potential impact in the BVI and Cayman of the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, which was handed down on 24 October 2012. Rubin deals with the issue of whether orders made in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States can be enforced as judgments of the English Courts.
COMPETING SETS OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES
In the recent decision of Kenneth Krys and Joanna Lau (as Joint Liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited in Liquidation) and Stichting Shell Pension Funds, HCVAP 2011/036, the ECSC Court of Appeal provided some clarification of its decision in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees Limited et al HCVAP No. 14 of 2010.
Fund investors and the fund industry globally should take note of the recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Appellate Division’s (the “Court of Appeal”) in Madoff related litigation. Essentially the Court of Appeal found that monies could not be recovered from former investors by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Fairfield”) a BVI investment fund and investor in Bernard L Madoff Investments Securities limited (“BLMIS”), where those investors had redeemed their shares for significant value before BLMIS collapsed..
In Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Limited), Case No. 11-4376, 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir.
On April 16, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") issued its decision in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.,1 in which the court held that (1) the relevant time for analyzing a debtor’s center of main interest ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign proceeding is at or around the time a petition for recognition is filed; (2) the determination of COMI is dependent on the facts of each case, which may include insolvency proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction; and (3) the public policy exception to relief sough
Introduction
The Insolvency Act 2003 of the British Virgin Islands (the “IA”) provides that the netting of financial contracts is legally enforceable notwithstanding any provisions of the IA or the Insolvency Rules. Significantly, this means that where an insolvent entity that is party to a financial contract goes into liquidation, what might otherwise be a voidable transaction will be upheld if carried out pursuant to a netting agreement.
Under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (the “Act”) there are two types of court supervised arrangements.
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.