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

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.

Introduction

Although the wishes of the majority of creditors (whether in number or by value) is an important factor in many decisions made in insolvency proceedings, the court retains discretion regarding whether a company should be placed into liquidation.

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a case filed under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code as the debtor's centre of main interest ("COMI") was not in the jurisdiction where the initial Liquidation was filed.

Creative Finance Ltd was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 1995. However the Company's main trade occurred in England, Dubai and Spain. In December 2013 the Company filed for Liquidation in the BVI, being its place of incorporation, and a Liquidator was duly appointed.

On 15 October 2012 the BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act, 2012 (the “BC Amendment Act”) came into force. It made a number of changes to the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, (the “BC Act”) generally, and more specifically it made significant changes to the voluntary liquidation process for solvent companies. A year on from the BC Amendment Act coming into force, we look at how the voluntary liquidation process has changed and how to avoid some potential pitfalls of the process.

Voluntary Liquidation

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts

This Briefing addresses the usual manner in which solvent voluntary liquidations proceed. The discussion is subject to the particular provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of any company seeking a voluntary liquidation.

Where a company is not a regulated entity, has no liabilities and is able to pay its debts as they come due, a voluntary winding up and dissolution may be commenced by a resolution of directors.

Where it is proposed to appoint a voluntary liquidator, the directors of the company shall:

The purpose of an anti-suit injunction is to restrain respondents from commencing or continuing proceedings in another jurisdiction. Anti-suit injunctions are an important, and frequently required, judicial tool within the BVI. The growing number of international companies registered in the BVI has resulted in a corresponding increase in the number of BVI matters involving multiple jurisdictions. The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in (1) Kenneth M.

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.