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.

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

In the case of UVW v XYZ (27 October 2016) brought before the BVI Commercial Court, a judgment creditor was seeking court orders for the disclosure by a third party to the proceedings of information relating to a BVI company owned by the judgment debtor. The third party disclosure orders were brought against the registered agent of the BVI Company. The applicant creditor argued that there had been a pattern of behaviour by which the debtor had concealed assets using the BVI vehicle.

In Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys [2014] UKPC 41, the Privy Council has held that where a company was being wound up in a jurisdiction where it was incorporated, and where a foreign creditor had submitted a proof of debt to the liquidators, that creditor had submitted to the jurisdiction of the administering court, and could not bring proceedings in its own jurisdiction with the aim of obtaining priority over other creditors.

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts

This article sets out the potential impact in the BVI and Cayman of the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, which was handed down on 24 October 2012. Rubin deals with the issue of whether orders made in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States can be enforced as judgments of the English Courts.

COMPETING SETS OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES

Last week, one of the largest tour operators and package tour operators in the world shut down – Thomas Cook. On September 23, 2019, the UK Supreme Court appointed an Official Receiver, a figure similar to the insolvency receiver in Bulgaria, who takes over the “management” of dozens of Thomas Cook Group companies and appoints consulting firms AlixPartners and KPMG to support the process.

The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

In October 2019, syncreon Group Holdings B.V. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the syncreon Group) completed a landmark cross-border balance sheet restructuring of approximately US$1.1-billion of debt. The syncreon Group’s restructuring is believed to be the first time that English scheme of arrangement proceedings have been used to restructure debt issued by a U.S.-based multinational enterprise (Scheme Proceedings).

On July 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) granted leave to appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Capital Steel Inc v Chandos Construction Ltd, 2019 ABCA 32 [Chandos].