Fund investors and the fund industry globally should take note of the recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Appellate Division’s (the “Court of Appeal”) in Madoff related litigation.  Essentially the Court of Appeal found that monies could not be recovered from former investors by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Fairfield”) a BVI investment fund and investor in Bernard L Madoff Investments Securities limited (“BLMIS”), where those investors had redeemed their shares for significant value before BLMIS collapsed.. 

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.

Redemption of shares and consideration
Discounted valuation
Restoration
Finality of foreign judgments

Redemption of shares and consideration

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

In Water Matrix Inc. v Carnevale, Justice Sanfilippo found that a consent judgment may survive bankruptcy if it arises from a claim that is based in fraud. This allowed a company that was defrauded by a former employee to continue to enforce the company’s judgment after bankruptcy.

Background

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently reviewed the indicia of a sham trust in McGoey (Re).

Gerald McGoey, an undischarged bankrupt, and his wife, Kathryn McGoey, claimed to be holding two properties in trust for their children. The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to have the properties declared assets of the Estate of Gerald McGoey, subject to realization for the benefit of his creditors.

There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37997 St. James No.1 Inc. v. Ed Vanderwindt, Chief Building Official and City of Hamilton (Ont.)

Municipal law – Heritage properties – Demolition or removal of structure

Good evening.

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

While Canada’s legal system will be familiar to many foreign investors and companies, the Canadian legal system and laws have a number of unique aspects that might surprise you. Understanding these unique aspects of Canadian law is critical to your business success in Canada. Gowling WLG understands the challenges of establishing and conducting business in this country. With offices in major cities across Canada, we provide effective counsel and insightful business solutions that help our clients access the full potential of the Canadian marketplace.