DOCSLIB.ORG

Liquidations: Don't Stop at the Caribbean

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Liquidations: Don't Stop at the Caribbean July 2012 Don’t stop at the Caribbean! Companies in offshore jurisdictions are often used in complex structures and are frequently encountered by parties who have commenced litigation or asset tracing exercises in onshore jurisdictions. Due to the perception that no information is Whilst companies can be wound up on a solvent available in offshore jurisdictions or that the or insolvent basis by their members, this article cost of obtaining it is prohibitive, parties may concentrates on a company being wound up on decide not to take steps to pursue matters an insolvent basis by a creditor. after a Caribbean incorporated company is It should be noted that other options may be available to creditors, such as the appointment encountered. of a Provisional Liquidator or a Receiver; these options are however not explored in this This is a mistaken view, as this article article, with the exception of a Receiver in demonstrates, a Liquidator, or a Receiver in Nevis. the case of Nevis, has considerable powers available to enable investigations to be This article does not explore other options undertaken into a company’s affairs and those available to parties such as Norwich Pharmacal of individuals or entities associated with the orders or Bankers Trust Co v Shapira orders. company and therefore creditors should not stop their investigations when they encounter Publicly available information these jurisdictions. The table over the page provides an indication This article concentrates on three jurisdictions of the information which is publicly available, within the Eastern Caribbean, the British Virgin from various sources, in the three jurisdictions. Islands, Anguilla and Nevis and looks at: As demonstrated below, the amount of publicly • what information is publicly available available information is relatively limited, and from various sources; is unlikely to assist a party to pursue a debtor. • a brief overview of the Court driven A Liquidator in BVI and Anguilla and a Receiver processes of winding up a company; and in Nevis have many powers available to them which enable them to obtain more information • the investigative powers available to a than is publicly available. Liquidator in the BVI and Anguilla, and a Receiver in Nevis. Information Source Type of Information Jurisdiction BVI Anguilla Nevis Companies Registry Details of shareholders Details of directors Memorandum and Articles of Association (and subsequent amendments) Register of charges Financial accounts Details of mergers and acquisitions Certificate of redomiciling Details of any prior insolvency proceedings Details of registered office Details of status of the company Annual returns Details of the ultimate beneficial owner Minutes of meetings and / or resolutions Court Registry Originating applications the company is a party to Details of death estate executor Land Registry Details of land held by the company Details of charges / lien on land Gazette Statutory notices in relation to the company The BVI on the level of resistance encountered. The application will usually be heard approximately Appointment of liquidator 6 - 8 weeks from presentation. An application to wind up a BVI company may Liquidator’s powers be brought by various parties including, but not limited to, a creditor, the shareholders and/or In our article ‘Cross Border Issues Facing a BVI the directors of the company. Liquidator’ (a copy of which can be found within this newsletter at ‘Related Publications’) There are two main grounds for applying to we reported on the investigative powers of a wind up a company: Liquidator and the initial sources of information, these are not repeated in full 1. inability to pay debts as they fall due; or here, but to summarise, the powers include: 2. it is just and equitable to do so. • Requiring the delivery of assets and documents; This article concentrates on winding up a company as a result of it being unable to pay • Requiring a sworn statement of affairs to its debts as they fall due. be submitted; The process typically is to: • Obtaining information from specified persons; • issue and serve a statutory demand; • The Liquidator examining parties to • if the statutory demand is not satisfied obtain information; and or set aside within 21 days, then an application is made to the Court for an • Applying to Court to examine persons Order placing the company into before the Court. liquidation; and • the applicant is required to advertise Anguilla the application. Appointment of liquidator It is not always necessary to issue a statutory demand, circumstances where it would not An application for compulsory liquidation may normally be issued include where there is be made by the Registrar of Companies or any already a judgment or there is no doubt that a other ‘interested person’. debt is due and payable. The cost of issuing a statutory demand is approximately $1.5k. There are three grounds for applying to wind up a company: The cost of preparing and presenting the application for a Winding Up Order, assuming it 1. the company is unable to pay its debts as is not a contested process, will usually be they fall due; between US$10,000 – US$15,000 (although these can vary matter to matter); if the matter 2. it is just and equitable to do so; or is contested, costs will be higher and depend 3. there is unanimous shareholder agreement Wang Ruiyn v. GEM Global Yield Fund Limited in requiring dissolution after the occurrence of November 2011 confirms that a creditor of a a specified event. Nevis company does not have any jurisdiction to wind up that company on the basis that there is There is no requirement to file a statutory no mechanism under Nevis law to permit this. demand and the petition is filed by an This applies to both International Business application to the Court verified by an Corporations and Limited Liability Companies affidavit. incorporated pursuant to the Nevis Business Ordinance, 1984 and the Nevis Limited Liability The cost of preparing and presenting the Company Ordinance, 1995 (both as amended), application, assuming it is not a contested respectively. process, will be a minimum of US$5,000. If the matter is contested, costs will be higher and The learned Judge, in arriving at his decision, will depend on the level of opposition to the considered whether the absence of express application and the complexity of the estate. provisions relating to the ability of a creditor to Depending on whether the application is wind up a company incorporated under Nevis contested or not, it will be heard within 3 to 6 law justified the importation of UK laws and months or 1 to 3 months, respectively, from procedure (pursuant to which creditors can presentation. petition for a company to be wound up), as permitted by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Liquidator’s powers Court (St. Kitts and Nevis) Act, Cap. 3.11. However the Judge determined that it was not The powers of a Liquidator are outlined in appropriate for UK law to be imported because section 222 of the Anguilla Companies Act. The he did not feel that the absence of such express main investigative power is: provisions meant that there is a lacuna or perceived lacuna in the laws. • the right to apply to Court to examine before the Court, any party who is Parties within St. Kitts and Nevis remain thought to have in his possession or optimistic that their Parliament will amend the under his control property of the Nevis Business Corporation Ordinance, 1984, to company. provide the necessary relief, akin to the position in the BVI, to allow a creditor to The legal commentary above has been petition the Nevis Court to wind up a company. provided by Tara Ruan, a solicitor at Caribbean Juris Chambers, Anguilla. Appointment of a Receiver There is a remedy available to a creditor who Nevis has obtained a judgment in the Nevis Court, under statute, case law and the rules of the Appointment of Liquidator Court itself a judgment creditor can enforce the judgment by seeking an order appointing a The position in Nevis is very different to that in Receiver – effectively providing similar benefits the BVI and Anguilla, a recent decision of the to that of a creditor in a creditors’ winding up. High Court Judge, Justice Albert Redhead in The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint • if the defendant does not acknowledge Christopher and Nevis) Act deals with the receipt of the demand (within 14 days of appointment of a receiver and provides the receipt), apply for a default judgment; statutory jurisdiction upon which a Court may and appoint a receiver. Specifically, Section 26(1) reads: • Once default judgment is obtained, the judgment creditor makes an application “A mandamus or an injunction may be granted to the Court for the company to be or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory placed into receivership. order of the High Court or of a Judge thereof in all cases in which it appears to the Court or If the defendant does not acknowledge receipt Judge to be just or convenient that the order of the demand within 14 days of receipt then should be made and any such order may be the statutory demand can usually be obtained made either unconditionally or upon such within a month of issuance and (subject to the terms and conditions as the Court or Judge Court’s schedule) the receivership order can be thinks just.” granted within 14 days of filing the application. The costs of preparing the demand and the It is clear from the above that the statutory subsequent Court application will depend upon test for the grant of an Order appointing a a number of factors and therefore it is not receiver is whether having considered all the possible to provide an indication of the possible facts of the case available at the date of the costs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judgment Claims in Receivership Proceedings*
    JUDGMENT CLAIMS IN RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS* JOHN K. BEACH Connecticuf Supreme Court of Errors In view of the importance of the subject it is unfortunate that so few of the reported cases on equitable receiverships of corporations have dealt in any comprehensive way with the principles underlying the administrating of the fund for the benefit of creditors. The result is that controversy has outstripped authoritative decision, and the subject is unsettled. To this generalization an exception must be noted in respect of the special topic of the application of current rail- way income to current expenses, before the payment of mortgage 1 indebtedness. On another disputed topic, the provability of imma.ure claims, the law, or at least the right principle of decision, has been settled, by the notable opinion of Judge Noyes in Pennsylvania Steel Company v. New York City Railway Company,2 followed and rein- forced by that of Mr. Justice Holmes in William Filene'sSons Company v. Weed.' Notwithstanding these important exceptions, the dearth of authority on the general subject is such that Judge Noyes refers to a case cited in his opinion as "almost the only case in which rules have "been formulated with respect to the provability of claims against "insolvent corporations."4 Upon the particular phase of the subject here discussed, the decisions are to some extent in conflict, and no attempt seems to have been made in text books or decisions to examine the question in the light of principle. Black, for example, dismisses the subject by saying it. is generally conceded that a receiver and the corporation whose property is under his charge "are so far in privity that a judgment against the * This paper deals only with judgments against the defendant in the receiver- ship, regarded as evidence of the validity and amount of the judgment creditor's claims for dividends to be paid out of the fund in the receiver's hands.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Represented Creditor
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A GUIDE FOR THE SELF-REPRESENTED CREDITOR IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE June 2014 Table of Contents Subject Page Number Legal Authority, Statutes and Rules ....................................................................................... 1 Who is a Creditor? .......................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Bankruptcy Process from the Creditor’s Perspective ................... 2 A Creditor’s Objections When a Person Files a Bankruptcy Petition ....................... 3 Limited Stay/No Stay ..................................................................................................... 3 Relief from Stay ................................................................................................................ 4 Violations of the Stay ...................................................................................................... 4 Discharge ............................................................................................................................. 4 Working with Professionals ....................................................................................................... 4 Attorneys ............................................................................................................................. 4 Pro se .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newton Spence and Peter Hughes V the Queen
    SAINT VINCENT & THE GRENADINES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1998 BETWEEN: NEWTON SPENCE Appellant and THE QUEEN Respondent and SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 1997 BETWEEN: PETER HUGHES Appellant and THE QUEEN Respondent Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders Justice of Appeal (Ag.) Appearances: Mr. J. Guthrie QC, Mr. K. Starmer and Ms. N. Sylvester for the Appellant Spence Mr. E. Fitzgerald QC and Mr. M. Foster for the Appellant Hughes Mr. A. Astaphan SC, Ms. L. Blenman, Solicitor General, Mr. James Dingemans, Mr. P. Thompson, Mr. D. Browne, Solicitor General, Dr. H. Browne and Ms. S. Bollers for the Respondents -------------------------------------------- 2000: December 7, 8; 2001: April 2. -------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT [1] BYRON, C.J.: This is a consolidated appeal, which concerns two appellants convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Saint Vincent and Saint Lucia respectively who exhausted their appeals against conviction and raised constitutional arguments against the mandatory sentence of death before the Privy Council which had not previously been raised in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. Background [2] The Privy Council granted leave to both appellants to appeal against sentence and remitted the matter to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to consider and determine whether (a) the mandatory sentence of death imposed should be quashed (and if so what sentence (including the sentence of death) should be imposed), or (b) the mandatory sentence of death imposed ought to be affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • UK (England and Wales)
    Restructuring and Insolvency 2006/07 Country Q&A UK (England and Wales) UK (England and Wales) Lyndon Norley, Partha Kar and Graham Lane, Kirkland and Ellis International LLP www.practicallaw.com/2-202-0910 SECURITY AND PRIORITIES ■ Floating charge. A floating charge can be taken over a variety of assets (both existing and future), which fluctuate from 1. What are the most common forms of security taken in rela- day to day. It is usually taken over a debtor's whole business tion to immovable and movable property? Are any specific and undertaking. formalities required for the creation of security by compa- nies? Unlike a fixed charge, a floating charge does not attach to a particular asset, but rather "floats" above one or more assets. During this time, the debtor is free to sell or dispose of the Immovable property assets without the creditor's consent. However, if a default specified in the charge document occurs, the floating charge The most common types of security for immovable property are: will "crystallise" into a fixed charge, which attaches to and encumbers specific assets. ■ Mortgage. A legal mortgage is the main form of security interest over real property. It historically involved legal title If a floating charge over all or substantially all of a com- to a debtor's property being transferred to the creditor as pany's assets has been created before 15 September 2003, security for a claim. The debtor retained possession of the it can be enforced by appointing an administrative receiver. property, but only recovered legal ownership when it repaid On default, the administrative receiver takes control of the the secured debt in full.
    [Show full text]
  • QM Small Creditor Flow Chart
    SSmmaallll CCrreeddiittoorr QQuuaalliiffiieedd MMoorrttggaaggeess RReefflleeccttss rruulleess iinn eeffffeecctt oonn MMaarrcchh 11,, 22002211 bbuutt ddooeess nnoott rreefflleecctt aammeennddmmeennttss mmaaddee bbyy tthhee EEccoonnoommiicc GGrroowwtthh,, RReegguullaattoorryy RReelliieeff,, aanndd CCoonnssuummeerr PPrrootteeccttiioonn AAcctt.. Type of Compliance Presumption: SmSmaallll CCrreeddiitotorr QQuuaalliifificcaatitioonn Loan Features Balloon Payment Features Underwriting Points and Fees Portfolio Higher-Priced Loan Did you do ALL of the following?: Did you and your affiliates: Did you and your affiliates who Does the loan have ANY of the Rebuttable Presumption At the time of consummation: are creditors that extended following characteristics?: (1) Consider and verify the consumer’s YES Applies Extend 2,000 or fewer first-lien, closed- Does the loan amount fall within the following covered transactions during the Potential Small debt obligations and income or assets? STOP end residential mortgages that are points-and-fees limits? Was the loan subject to forward last calendar year have: (1) negative amortization; Creditor QM [via § 1026.43(c)(7), (e)(2)(v)]; = Non-Small Creditor QM (QM is presumed to comply subject to ATR requirements in the last YES commitment? AND YES YES = Non-Balloon-Payment QM with ATR requirements if calendar year? You can exclude loans Points-and-fees caps (adjusted annually) Assets below $2 billion (as annually OR AND it’s a higher-priced loan, but YES [§ 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(C), (f)(1)(v)] that you originated and kept in portfolio consumers can rebut the adjusted) at the end of the last STOP If Loan Amount ≥ $100,000, then = 3% of total or that your affiliate originated and kept (2) interest-only features; (2) Calculate the consumer’s monthly presumption by showing calendar year? = Non-QM If $100,000 > Loan Amount ≥ $60,000, then = $3,000 in portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations Chester Rohrlich
    Cornell Law Review Volume 19 Article 3 Issue 1 December 1933 Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations Chester Rohrlich Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chester Rohrlich, Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations, 19 Cornell L. Rev. 35 (1933) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol19/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CREDITOR CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS; OPERATING RECEIVERSHIPS; COR- PORATE REORGANIZATIONS* CHESTER RoHRmicnt A corporation is, on a smaller scale (in some instances on a larger scale), like the political state, in that beneath the cloak of its unity there is a continuous, at times active but more frequently passive, struggle for power among the various groups in interest. Some of these groups, such as the public that deals with it or the employees who work for it, have as yet achieved only the the barest minimum of legal right to control its destinies.' In the arena of the law, the traditional conflict is between the stockholders2 and the creditors. There is an increasing convergence of interest between these two groups as the former become more and more "investors" rather than entrepreneurs, and the latter less and less inclined, or able, to stand on the letter of their bond'3 both are in the last analysis dependent *This article is the substance of one of the chapters of the author's forthcoming book THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF CORPORATE CONTROL.
    [Show full text]
  • Address by the Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court the Hon. Mr. Justice Hugh Rawlins to Mark the Opening of T
    ADDRESS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HUGH RAWLINS TO MARK THE OPENING OF THE LAW YEAR 2008/2009 CASTRIES SAINT LUCIA MONDAY, 15th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRODUCED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OFFICE CASTRIES, SAINT LUCIA Introduction . Your Excellency, Dame Pearlette Louisy, Governor-General of Saint Lucia and Their Excellencies, the Heads of State of each of the OECS Member States and Territories;; . Honourable Heads of Government of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . The Hon. Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Senator Dr. Nicholas Frederick, and Hon. Attorneys-General and Ministers of Justice of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . Honourable Ministers of Government of Saint Lucia and of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the High Court and Masters ; . Honourable Leaders of the Opposition of the OECS Member States and Territories; . The Honourable Speakers of the Houses of Representatives, Presidents of the Senates and Members of Parliament of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . Chief/Senior Magistrates and Magistrates of the OECS; . The Chief Registrar, Deputy Chief Registrar and Registrars of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court; . The President of the OECS Bar Association and Presidents of constituent Bar Associations; 2 . Learned members of the Inner Bar of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . Members of the Utter Bar, learned in the Law, of each of the OECS Member States and Territories; . Commissioners of Police, Police Officers and Heads of Correctional Facilities of St.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK for PUBLICATION ------X in Re: RICHARD HARTLEY Chapter 7 and KARA L
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR PUBLICATION --------------------------------------------------------X In re: RICHARD HARTLEY Chapter 7 and KARA L. HARTLEY, No. 09-37770 (CGM) Debtors. --------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER ESPOSITO, Plaintiff, v. Adv. Pro. No. 10-9055 (CGM) RICHARD HARTLEY and KARA L. HARTLEY, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: DRAKE LOEB HELLER KENNEDY GOGERTY GABA & RODD, PLLC 555 Hudson Valley Avenue Suite 100 New Windsor, NY 12553 By: Stuart Kossar Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jennifer Esposito GREHER LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1161 Little Britain Road Suite B New Windsor, NY 12553 By: Warren Greher Attorney for the Defendants, Richard and Kara Hartley MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT The plaintiff brings this adversary proceeding to except from discharge a judgment obtained against the defendants’ deli and catering business, Hartley’s Catering, Inc. (“Hartley’s Catering”). Because the defendants dissolved the corporation without giving plaintiff notice and opportunity to enforce her judgment against it, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for Page 1 of 12 on the judgment. The debt is non-dischargeable as property obtained by false pretenses, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) and for failure to list the plaintiff in the petition pursuant to 523(a)(3). Background On November 13 2003, Hartley’s Catering was incorporated in the state of New York. Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 1. On February 21, 2008, the New York State Commission of the Division of Human Rights found Hartley’s Catering d/b/a Schlesinger’s Deli Depot, liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $300,000. Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 50.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Fdic As Conservator Or Receiver
    September 26, 2008 OVERVIEW OF THE FDIC AS CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER This memorandum is an overview of the receivership and conservatorship authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). In view of the many and complex specific issues that may arise in this context, this memorandum is necessarily an overview, but it does give particular reference to counterparty issues that might arise in the case of a relatively large complex bank such as a significant regional bank and outlines elements of the FDIC framework which differ from a corporate bankruptcy. This memorandum has three parts: (1) background on the legal framework governing FDIC resolutions, highlighting changes and developments since the 1990s; (2) an outline of six distinctive aspects of the FDIC approach with comparison to the bankruptcy law provisions; and (3) a final section illustrating issues and uncertainties in the FDIC resolutions process through a more detailed review of two examples – treatment of loan securitizations and participations, and standby letters of credit.1 Relevant additional materials include: the pertinent provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance (the "FDI") Act2 and FDIC rules3, statements of policy4 and advisory opinions;5 the FDIC Resolution Handbook6 which reflects the FDIC's high level description of the receivership process, including a contrast with the bankruptcy framework; recent speeches of FDIC Chairman 1 While not exhaustive, these discussions are meant to be exemplary of the kind of analysis that is appropriate in analyzing any transaction with a bank counterparty. 2 Esp. Section 11 et seq., http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/1000- 1200.html#1000sec.11 3 Esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Paying Homage to the Right Honourable Sir C.M. Dennis Byron Meet the Team Chief Editor CAJO Executive Members the Honourable Mr
    NewsJuly 2018 Issue 8 Click here to listen to the theme song of Black Orpheus as arranged by Mr. Neville Jules and played by the Massy Trinidad All Stars Steel Orchestra. Paying Homage to The Right Honourable Sir C.M. Dennis Byron Meet the Team Chief Editor CAJO Executive Members The Honourable Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders Chairman Contributors Mr. Terence V. Byron, C.M.G. The Honourable Justice Mr. Adrian Saunders Madam Justice Indra Hariprashad-Charles Caribbean Court of Justice Retired Justice of Appeal Mr. Albert Redhead Mr. Justice Constant K. Hometowu Vice Chairman Mr. Justice Vagn Joensen Justice of Appeal Mr. Peter Jamadar Trinidad and Tobago Graphic Artwork & Layout Ms. Danielle M Conney Sir Marston Gibson, Chief Justice - Barbados Country Representativesc Chancellor Yonnette Cummings-Edwards - Guyana Mr. Justice Mauritz de Kort, Vice President of the Joint Justice Ian Winder - The Bahamas Court of The Dutch Antilles Registrar Shade Subair Williams - Bermuda; Madam Justice Sandra Nanhoe - Suriname Mrs. Suzanne Bothwell, Court Administrator – Cayman Madam Justice Nicole Simmons - Jamaica Islands Madam Justice Sonya Young – Belize Madam Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams - Trinidad and Tobago c/o Caribbean Court of Justice Master Agnes Actie - ECSC 134The CaribbeanHenry Street, Association of Judicial Of�icers (CAJO) Port of Spain, Chief Magistrate Christopher Birch – Barbados Trinidad & Tobago Senior Magistrate Patricia Arana - Belize Registrar Musa Ali - Caribbean Competition Commit- 623-2225 ext 3234 tee - Suriname [email protected] In This Issue Editor’s Notes Pages 3 - 4 Excerpts of the Family Story Pages 5 - 7 The Different Sides of Sir Dennis Pages 8 - 9 My Tribute to the Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their Duties and Powers
    Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their duties and powers A quick guide Introduction We have produced this information booklet to explain the powers, duties and responsibilities of liquidators, receivers and examiners under the Companies Acts. What are liquidations, receiverships and examinerships? The liquidation of a company is also known as ‘winding up’ a company. The process takes the company out of existence in an orderly way by paying debts from any available assets. Receivership is used by banks or other lenders to sell a company asset that was promised to them if the company failed to repay its loan as agreed. Examinership is a process that protects a company from its creditors (the people to whom it owes money) while efforts are being made to keep it running as a going concern. What are liquidators, receivers and examiners? A liquidator is the person who winds up a company. A receiver is the person who sells particular company assets on behalf of a lender. Where a loan is secured on a company’s entire business, a ‘receiver manager’ can be appointed as manager of the business during the receivership. Once a receiver raises enough money to pay back the debt, their job is finished. Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their duties and powers Examiners consider if a company can be saved and, if it can, they prepare the rescue plan. Who can act as liquidators, receivers or examiners? Liquidators, receivers and examiners do not need to have any specific qualifications under the law. However, they are usually practising accountants. To make sure that liquidators, receivers and examiners work independently of the company, they cannot be: • a director or employee of the company; or • a family member, partner or employee of a director.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2000
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Report 2000-2003 Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, The British Virgin Islands, The Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 Mission Statement “Delivery of justice independently by competent officers in a prompt, fair, efficient and effective manner”. 2 Contents Introduction by the Honourable Chief Justice 4 Eastern Caribbean Judicial System 6 Members of the Judiciary 8 Developments and Initiatives Department of Court Administration 14 Judicial Training 18 Mediation 22 Court of Appeal Registry 23 Law Reports 24 Court Buildings 25 The Reform Programme 26 Funding of the Judiciary 35 Court Productivity 38 ECSC Contact Information 53 3 Introduction The Honourable Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice This is the second Report of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. The first was published for the period 1st August 1999 to 31st July 2000. As part of ensuring that the Court provides an account for the work, which it performs, a report will be published annually in time for the opening of the new law year. The Years 2000-2003 saw several significant developments in the Court as we continued with our reforms. In addition to the several administrative and procedural reforms taking place, the Court introduced a very successful pilot project in Court Connected Mediation. Mediation is fully in place in the member state of Saint Lucia and plans are in progress to replicate the activity in the other member states of the Court. The persons entrusted to manage the Court system take this job very seriously and we are determined to see the reforms bring about the desired results of dealing with cases in a just and timely manner.
    [Show full text]