Offshore security enforcement Offshore security enforcement /3 Contents 4 Introduction 5 British Virgin Islands (BVI) 8 Cayman Islands 11 Isle of Man 14 Guernsey 18 Jersey 21 Luxembourg 24 Malta 27 Mauritius 30 About us 31 Key contacts Offshore security enforcement 4\ Introduction This briefing document summarises the key issues in enforcing security in the countries listed and is a general guide. Taylor Wessing does not have offices in the jurisdictions contained in this guide, but has called on the support of the firms acknowledged at the back.

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.

Bankruptcy & restructuring

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business — particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

1. Legislation and court system

Introduction – why does this matter?

With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.

Readers will recall that on 23 September 2016 we posted an article about recognition under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin Shipping.

This week’s TGIF considers Tai-Soo Suk v Hanjin Shopping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404 in which the Court was required to determine the scope of a stay arising under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

BACKGROUND

A Korean shipping company was subject to ‘rehabilitation’ proceedings in Korea. Rehabilitation proceedings seek to ‘rehabilitate’ insolvent debtors by restructuring their debt pursuant to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Rehabilitation Court.

FUNDING IN FOCUS CONTENT SERIES REPORT T HREE JULY 2016 2 | VANNIN CAPITAL Funding in Focus Content Series Welcome Welcome to the third edition of Funding in Focus. Since the inception of Funding in Focus, the funding market has grown and developed. This development is reflected in the number, type and complexity of the cases we are being asked to fund across the globe. We have seen an exponential rise in requests for funding in a range of sectors, including in arbitration and insolvency, and in a range of jurisdictions.

Introduction

When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia.  The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.  

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is designed to supplement States' insolvency laws with a framework to address cross-border insolvency proceedings.