This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Introduction

Recently, the British Virgin Islands has seen a trend wherein debtors involved in winding-up proceedings have sought to identify what appear to be spurious disputes and then to rely on arbitration clauses in order to strike out or stay the winding-up proceedings. While this tactic could be regarded as capitalising on the wider global trend towards giving absolute primacy to arbitration agreements, it is often deployed to buy time for debtors and frustrate creditors that are legitimately seeking to wind up insolvent companies.

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