This Regulatory Update provides a snapshot of the key legal developments in the BVI and the Cayman Islands over the last quarter – including amendments to BVI business company fees, the introduction of the BVI Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, and an update on the list of director names which is now publicly available in the BVI. It also contains a reminder of the January 2023 filing deadlines in the Cayman Islands, amendments to the Cayman LLC legislation and details of the highest possible rating given to the Cayman Islands by OECD for effectiveness of AEOI regime.

The Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act¹ (the FCA), a concise statute of long-standing that traces its history to an English statute of 1571, is intended to prevent conveyances of property made with the intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud “creditors or others” of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties or forfeitures.

This guide should not be relied on as a definitive guide to the legislation and should not be relied on as legal advice. The particular circumstances of any situation will need to be considered to determine if the overseas entity is one that is captured by the legislation, if the estate is a qualifying estate, and whether the beneficial owners need to be registered. As a result, this guide is intended only as a high-level overview.

This guide covers the position of property and land situated in England and Wales only. 

With HMRC more focused than ever before on recovering taxes due, we look at the most common ways in which HMRC can transfer the liability of taxes due and/or penalties to Company Officers and making them personally liable.

The Government has promised to spend an additional £79 million over the next five years to help HMRC tackle tax fraud and address compliance risks amongst wealthy taxpayers. HMRC's efforts will be a threat to businesses affected in terms of costs and expenditure in time in dealing with HRMC.

HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2022 Welcome to our first annual digest, in which we collate our 2022 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place. This edition includes updates from the whole Disputes arena across England, AsiaPac, and the Middle East. HFW is one of the world’s largest and most active disputes practices, litigation is in our DNA. We have more than 350 specialist disputes lawyers in offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and AsiaPac.

In times of economic uncertainty, fraud typically increases. And these are certainly economically uncertain times. Fraud has been on the rise over recent years and that trend is set to continue. The motivation and opportunity to commit fraud increases as financial pressures loom over individuals and businesses. We are also set to see a continued increase in insolvencies as the impact of the pandemic and other global events set in. The appointment of insolvency practitioners means frauds which might have otherwise continued or remained concealed are more likely to be uncovered.

On October 12, the Honorable Robert D. Drain, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued his final decision from the bench in the bankruptcy cases of supermarket chain Tops Holdings II Corporation (“Tops”). The decision came in an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid four dividend payments totaling $375 million from 2009–2013 paid to the Tops’ private equity investors (the “PE Group”) as constructive and actual fraudulent transfers and also hold the director-defendants responsible for breaching their fiduciary duties.

While an insolvency process is not always welcomed with open arms, in fraud cases it can play a key role in uncovering frauds that might otherwise have remained concealed and may result in recoveries for victims. This is because an insolvency process paves the way for an independent investigation into the company's affairs and the directors' conduct to be carried out by an insolvency practitioner (IP).

In the recent case of LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2954, the High Court of England and Wales made orders directed at a number of cryptocurrency exchanges requiring them to provide information in relation to misappropriated crypto assets.

In the recent judgement of In the matter of SPARC Group Limited (en désastre) [2022] JRC 194 (SPARC Group), the Royal Court of Jersey considered the appropriate test for the making of a disqualification order against a director, with the stark nature of the facts justifying a lengthy term of disqualification.

Background 

The application for a disqualification order was made by the Viscount, in respect of Andrew Jeremy Mills (Mr Mills), who was the sole director of SPARC Group Limited (the Company), a property development business.