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.

In a decision of interest in a number of jurisdictions where these types of claims have been made, the BVI Commercial Court handed down judgment today in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, a BVI fund which invested in Bernard Madoff’s investment vehicle.

Redemption of shares and consideration
Discounted valuation
Restoration
Finality of foreign judgments

Redemption of shares and consideration

Liquidators were appointed over Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited (together “the Funds”) by orders of the BVI High Court dated 21 July 2009, 21 July 2009 and 23 April 2009 respectively. Fairfield Sentry Limited was the largest “feeder” fund to Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) and invested approximately 95% of its assets with BLMIS. BLMIS was placed into liquidation proceedings in the United States in December 2008, after it was revealed that Bernard Madoff operated BLMIS as a Ponzi scheme for many years.

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.

On 15 September 20091 the judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States held that Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) could not rely on Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement to suspend payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“LBSF”). Specifically, Judge Peck held that the safe harbour provisions in the US bankruptcy code protected a non-defaulting party’s contractual rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate swaps and to net termination values but did not provide a basis to withhold performance under a swap if it did not terminate.

A recent decision from the Commercial Court of the British Virgin Islands has clarified the position of a redeemed shareholder of a fund who has a claim for redemption proceeds which have become due and payable. In the matter ofWestern Union International Limited v Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd., the court considered the status of a redeemed shareholder both before and after the commencement of the liquidation of a fund and the operation of Section 197 of the Insolvency Act, 2003 (the “Act”). Section 197 states that:

There continues to be numerous issues surrounding the “creditor/investor” debate in fund’s litigation. There have been a number of cases of particular note. First of all Citco Global v Y2K Finance where a winding up petition was brought on two basis. First of all, alleged improper redemption payments made by the fund prior to the suspension of redemptions.

Western Union v Reserve International The BVI Commercial Court, which was established last May, has handed down an important decision on the status of a redeemed shareholder and the application of Section 197 of the Insolvency Act 2003 to the investor’s status. In summary, the redeemed shareholder was viewed as an unsecured creditor and, as such, able to petition for the liquidation of the company in which they were previously a shareholder and to rank alongside other, third party, unsecured creditors.

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.