In an application to wind up a BVI company the BVI Court re-stated the rules on when a foreign judgment creates an issue estoppel. Following The Sennar [1985] 1 WLR 490 the Court found that there would be an estoppel where a foreign judgment is (1) of a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) is final and conclusive; and (3) on the merits.

As well as issuing claims in mistake and restitution in the BVI Commercial Court and the US State Supreme Court, the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“the Fund”) also petitioned for and, on 22 July 2010 obtained, Chapter 15 recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

The First Creditor Driven Schemes

The Commercial Court has very recently sanctioned four schemes of arrangement pursuant to section 179A of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004. These were the first two creditor-driven schemes to be proposed and sanctioned in the BVI. There has been one other scheme proposed and sanctioned in the BVI but this was a member’s scheme and was altogether more straightforward. Ogier BVI was instructed in relation to all four schemes.

The First Scheme

The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

A number of changes have been made to insolvency procedure to remove various discrepancies and controversial practices:

The general legal framework of existing Bulgarian insolvency law covers the core features recognised by the international insolvency community and takes account of EC Regula-tions and Directives. On the other hand, it does not always achieve the proper balance between the need to address the debtor’s financial difficulty as efficiently as possible and the interests of the creditors.

This article highlights some inefficiencies of the existing Bulgarian insolvency regime compared with international best practices.

Scope

Canada’s two main insolvency and restructuring statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) were recently amended to include a new duty of good faith on the part of all “interested persons” involved in an insolvency proceeding. The amendments do not define “good faith” or “interested persons”. Although requiring all participants in an insolvency proceeding to act in good faith may be a laudable objective, the statutory amendments are problematic.

On January 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al., opening the doors to third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings in Canada.

Background

The Quebec Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in Gestion Éric Savard¹ reaffirms the super-priority ranking of CCAA² DIP financing³ over regular unpaid post-filing obligations, absent steps being taken to reverse this usual order of priorities.

On December 3, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in 1732427 Ontario Inc. v. 1787930 Ontario Inc.¹ At issue was a pre-authorized debit payment processed by a supplier after a debtor filed a notice of intention to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The motion judge had found this payment to be an exercise of a creditor remedy prohibited by the stay provisions of subsection 69(1) of the BIA.