Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90

The drafting changes just discussed are primarily intended to ensure that funds do not become embroiled in contractual disputes, but in a global recession more and more funds are finding themselves in disputes that threaten to end up, and sometimes do end up, before the courts. In this chapter we analyse the legal issues surrounding key matters in the current litigious environment and cover the following:  

Introduction

If a fund is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities. An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the fund into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the fund’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries. Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.  

The credit crunch has put pressure on a wide range of structures and, as a result, lenders, borrowers and other counterparties are looking more closely at the impact of possible insolvency proceedings. As Jersey companies have often been used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies.  

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?

These are:-  

Result

In a recent Federal Court case in Australia (Global Tradewaves Ltd ("GTL") [2013] FCA 1127), liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands (BVI) court to GTL, successfully obtained leave to examine a former director of GTL in relation to the company's affairs and to compel him to produce certain company records.

UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

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.

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

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.

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.

National interests play a distinct part in application of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency.  

The Model Law