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

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.

A recent application to the British Virgin Islands courts has sought to blur the lines between directors’ general duties to act for the benefit of an insolvent company’s creditors, and the statutory clawback associated with unfair preferences entered into in the twilight period prior to a company going into liquidation.

In a recent Bennett Jones Update—Property Tax Priorities in Alberta Insolvency Proceedings: Current Uncertainty—we discussed three recent decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta that had addressed the question of the priority of municipal property taxes in insolvency proceedings.

Often, when the parties to a financing are discussing priorities or intercreditor arrangements, there tends to be a simplistic view taken of these agreements. Once the competing creditors have sorted out their respective priorities over the various pools or types of collateral, they tend to think that the terms of the agreement are essentially settled and simply need to be put into writing.

This is the third instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. This article discusses insolvencies from the perspective of corporate parents of distressed Canadian retailers.

2017 saw a number of interesting and important developments in Canadian insolvency and restructuring matters. Some of the highlights (which, in certain instances, will continue as issues in 2018 and beyond) are set forth below:

1) Trends: Fewer CCAA Filings and Retail Insolvencies in the News

The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1966[1] marks the first time the BC Supreme Court has rejected an application to wind-up a strata corporation pursuant to Bill 40 under the Strata Property Act

In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.