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

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:

Trial on preliminary issues

By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company.  Claims are most likely to be based on the following:

On 16 September 2011 judgment was handed down by the BVI Commercial Court in a number of cases that have been brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Fairfield”), a "feeder fund" into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities Limited (“BLMIS”), against a number of investors that historically redeemed out of the fund (the "Fairfield judgment"). Subject to any appeal, the Fairfield judgment should put an end to the liquidators’ claims in the BVI.

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.

Under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (the “Act”) there are two types of court supervised arrangements.

The recent decision in Pacific China Holdings Limited v Grand Pacific Holdings Limited, BVIHCV 2009/389 sets out the view of the BVI Commercial Court as to who, if anyone, should be responsible for the remuneration of liquidators where a liquidation order is set aside on appeal.

On Friday 1 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its much awaited written judgment in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees et al. The decision has far reaching consequences, not only for BVI funds, but also for all types of BVI corporate vehicles. The case directly and indirectly dealt with four major issues:-  

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.