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.

The British Virgin Islands 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.

Yesterday, the ECSC Court of Appeal set aside the winding up order made in the case of Westford Special Situations Fund Ltd. v. Barfield Nominees Limited and another, and dismissed the Joint Liquidators appointed over the fund.

Westford was put into liquidation earlier this year by shareholders whose application was based on their entitlement to unpaid redemption proceeds. At first instance the application was allowed and Joint Liquidators were appointed over the Fund on two grounds:-

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.