DOCSLIB.ORG

DECLARATION of Professor Jonathan Harris in Support Re

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DECLARATION of Professor Jonathan Harris in Support Re Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al Doc. 1048 Att. 32 EXHIBIT 86 Part 1 Dockets.Justia.com / of ank .uty nirt h a PART III or :hat the ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS it it nds : a Ion Edited by Robin Mayor ay~ :his Chapter 9 The Shared Legal Heritage der Robin Mayor 109 h a ey) Chapter 10 Bermuda .ial Alex Potts 113 (as Chapter 11 The British Virgin Islands Mark Forte and Richard Evans 141 Chapter 12 The Cayman Islands Nigel Meeson QC 153 Chapter 13 The Isle of Man Robert Colquitt 169 Chapter 14 Guernsey John Greenfield and Alistair Wrench 181 Chapter 15 Jersey Mike Cushing and David Benest 193 CHAPTER 9 THE SHARED LEGAL HERITAGE Robin Mayor" 9.1 The status of English law 109 9.2 Statutory methods of enforcement of foreign judgments 110 9.3 Enforcement of foreign judgments at common law III 9.1 THE STATUS OF ENGLISH LAW Much has been said in the preceding chapters on the overriding similarities of the various jurisdictions which form the subject of this book. It is not intended to repeat that here. As previously noted, the six 'offshore' jurisdictions share any number of similarities in their approach to foreign cooperation, which is in large part derived from the statutory provisions and common law developed in the United Kingdom. However, English law as such is not always directly applicable as part of the local law of the subject jurisdictions. The enforcement of foreign judgments is no exception; indeed, there are considerably more similarities than differences in the principles applied, even in the face of some different approaches by way of procedure. This is because the legislation dealing with this topic is based on English (or British) statutory precedents, which in turn results in the body of English precedent dealing with substantially similar statutory rules having particularly significant persuasive force. Nevertheless, there are occasional differences of approach in terms of both the applicable substantive law and local procedural variations. The extent of local Robin Mayor is a partner in the Litigation & Restructuring Department of Conyers Dill & Pearman's Bermuda office. 110 Part III - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments case law dealing with this topic also varies considerably (for instance, there is very little local case law in the British Virgin Islands but a significant body of local jurisprudence in Bermuda). i The overriding principles to be derived from the following six chapters are as j follows: (1) there is no direct enforcement of foreign judgments; and (2) there is ~ a growing tendency to cooperation between sovereign nations such that. it is becoming increasingly clear that jurisdictional boundaries are becoming less clearly defined and more open to reflect the global removal of commercial and political boundaries. In this regard the subject jurisdictions, despite their shared legal heritage, may be seen as not simply slavishly following British judicial precedents, but also creating new law of their own. 9.2 STATUTORY METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS In all six jurisdictions, there is provision for registration of foreign judgments (i:..'.'...\ 1 from certain named territories and countries. The legislation giving rise to the I registration of judgments in all six jurisdictions is derived from or modelled on I the UK Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the UK Foreign Judgments I (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and it is not therefore surprising that the provisions across the six are so similar. It is clear that the identity of those recognised for the purposes of registration are those that have close historical, geographical or political ties. Needless to say, as a result of the diverse history of each of the six, this list, while having some names in common, is equally diverse. Bermuda includes recognition of judgments from the United Kingdom and the Federal courts and many of the state courts in Australia along with most, if not all of the Commonwealth or former Commonwealth dependent island nations. Not surprisingly, the British Virgin Islands similarly recognise many of the island territories and the courts of New South Wales and part of Nigeria. It is interesting to note that none of the six include in the list of those places from which judgments will be capable of registration, the United States. Similarities in the requirements for registration include that the judgment must be: (1) a final judgment (although it can be subject to appeal); (2) from a superior court; and (3) for a sum of money due. Once registered, it will be treated in all material respects as if it was a judgment of the domestic court and the plaintiffs will be able to avail themselves of all of the remedies that they would have had the judgment been obtained in the local jurisdiction in the first place. The Shared Legal Heritage 111 e is Prohibitions against registration include those judgments which represent taxes ! of or penalties imposed by the foreign jurisdiction; this is as a result of the general attitude of these common law based countries towards punitive damages, amongst other things. The foreign court must also have had jurisdiction over the ~as defendant. And the general thread running through these various analyses is that 'e is the foreign court's competence must be similar to the competency which would t is be enjoyed bya corresponding court in one of our six jurisdictions. less and lfed 9.3 ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AT cial COMMON-LAW If the foreign judgment is one which does not fall within the relevant registration legislation of the offshore jurisdiction, all six provide for the application of common law principles derived from England and Wales for enforcement. mts Essentially, the English common law position, which is well established and has the been adopted across the six jurisdictions, is that a fresh action may be brought in on the domestic courts against the defendant based on the foreign judgment. .nts Provided that there is no defence of fraud, failure of jurisdiction and it is not the contrary to natural justice or to domestic public policy, the domestic courts will lean heavily toward giving summary judgment and will not seek to reopen the issues and have a fresh trial on matters that have already been determined by a :ion competent foreign court. ; to ing These general principles have always applied to the enforcement of money i of judgments. However, there has historically been some doubt as to whether the the same principles would apply to a non-monetary judgment. The law in the . o. Cayman Islands appears to have developed such that non-money judgments can tish now be enforced. lrts the As discussed in detail in Chapter 15, the Jersey Royal Court held in Brunei : of Investment Agency and Bandone Sdn BHd and Others v Fidelis Nominees Ltd and Others, I that the court should have a discretion to give effect to a foreign non-monetary judgment. The court spent considerable time reviewing the rust development of the common law rules relating to enforcement of foreign [}a judgments and cited with favour several recent cases in which the issue of the be enforcement of foreign non-money judgments has been considered, including a md recent Cayman Islands case and several cases from Canada. The following hey irst [2008] JRC 152. 112 Part III - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments passage from a Canadian case perhaps best reflects the way in which the courts of the subject British-based systems will likely follow: The world has changed since the ... rules [concerning the recognition of foreign judgments] were developed in 19th century England. Modern means of travel and communications have made many of these 19th century concerns appear parochial. The business community operates in a world economy and we correctly speak of a world community even in the face of decentralised political and legal power. Accommodating the flow of wealth, skills and people across state lines has now become imperative. Under these circumstances, our approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments would appear ripe for reappraisal.' The Royal Court of Jersey determined that they did have the discretion, but that such discretion must be exercised with caution. It would be surprising indeed, if the decisions of the Privy Council (Isle of Man), the Cayman Islands decision' and the Brunei (Jersey) case were not viewed in all six territories as highly persuasive authority for the general proposition that in the modem commercial world that we currently occupy, it is unrealistic not to extend the common law principles of recognising and enforcing foreign judgments to include non-money judgments in certain circumstances. 2 Morguard Investments Limited v De Savoye (1993) SCR 10777, cited with approval by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Pro Swing Inc v Elta Gold Inc (2006) SCC 52. 3 Miller v Gianne and Redwood Hotel Investment Corporation [2007] CILR 18. urts eign and hial. ofa wer. CHAPTER 10 now ition BERMUDA that Alex Potts' not eral it is 10.1 Introduction 113 and 10.2 Statutory provisions for enforcement 115 10.3 Enforcement at common law 125 tain 10.4 Future developments 135 10.1 INTRODUCTION A judgment or order of a foreign court (' a foreign judgment') has no direct legal effect in Bermuda, I and a foreign judgment is not enforceable in Bermuda in and of itself. Steps have to be taken to have a foreign judgment legally enforced in Bermuda. Depending on the nature of the foreign judgment, a foreign judgment may be recognised or enforceable in Bermuda pursuant to various statutory rules or common law rules. In particular: Alex Potts is an Associate in the litigation department at Conyers Dill & Pearman's Bermuda 'I the office.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PXRE Group Ltd
    ACE BOWNE OF NEW YORK 06/14/2007 23:56 NO MARKS NEXT PCN: 002.00.00.00 -- Page is valid, no graphics BNY Y34230 001.00.00.00 18 As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2007 Registration No. 333-142568 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Amendment No. 2 to Form S-4 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 PXRE Group Ltd. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) Bermuda 6361 98-0214719 (State or other jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (IRS Employer Incorporation or Organization) Classification Code Number) Identification Number) PXRE House 110 Pitts Bay Road Pembroke HM 08 Bermuda (441) 296-5858 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices) CT Corporation 111 Eighth Avenue 13th Floor New York, New York 10011 (212) 894-8600 (Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service) Copies to: Linda E. Ransom, Esq. Ronald B. Given, Esq. Michael Groll, Esq. Dewey Ballantine LLP Argonaut Group, Inc. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas 10101 Reunion Place, Suite 500 125 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 San Antonio, TX 78216 New York, NY 10019 (212) 259-8000 (210) 321-8400 (212) 424-8000 Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Registration Statement and the conditions to the completion of the merger described herein have been satisfied or waived.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating Cross-Border Coverage in the Bermuda 'Choice of Law'
    Westlaw Journal INSURANCE COVERAGE Litigation News and Analysis • Legislation • Regulation • Expert Commentary VOLUME 25, ISSUE 32 / MAY 14, 2015 EXPERT ANALYSIS Navigating Cross-Border Coverage in the Bermuda ‘Choice Of Law’ Triangle By Walter J. Andrews, Esq., and Paul T. Moura, Esq. Hunton & Williams Because American courts have interpreted insurance policies in some unexpected ways over the past several decades, many insurance carriers and policyholders have shied away from U.S.-based insurance coverage and have flocked to Bermuda to use what are commonly referred to as “Bermuda Form” policies. The idea is that the use of these foreign policies can mitigate some of the perceived risks posed by the American court system. Originally, Bermuda Form policies required disputes to be subject to arbitration governed by U.S. substantive law, but with procedural and arbitration rules governed by English law. The view was that this would, in theory, make coverage litigation less expensive or unwieldy. As the Bermuda insurance market has developed, however, more insurance and reinsurance agreements are now designating Bermuda substantive law. Bermuda law is largely modeled after English common law, but it has a few of its own quirks. Thus, in considering whether to purchase these policies, policyholders will need to demystify this tripartite governing law, and they should keep in mind several potential key differences between U.S. insurance law and Bermuda’s developing insurance framework. COVERAGE FOR ‘PROPERTY DAMAGE’ Policy language under U.S. law may result in broader coverage for certain liabilities than would similar language governed by Bermudian law. For example, jurisdictions can vary as to what constitutes physical damage to property.
    [Show full text]
  • Bermuda Trustee Act 1975 and Related Legislation
    Bermuda Trustee Act 1975 and Related Legislation Last Updated: August 2020 TRUSTEE ACT 1975 AND RELATED LEGISLATION About Conyers Conyers is a leading international law firm with a broad client base including FTSE 100 and Fortune 500 companies, international finance houses and asset managers. The Firm advises on Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands laws, from offices in those jurisdictions and in the key financial centres of Hong Kong, London and Singapore. Affiliated company, Conyers Client Services, provides registered agent, registered office, corporate director and secretarial services, as well as specialised company trust and management services. Key Contact: Global Contacts: Bermuda Hong Kong Peter A.S. Pearman Christopher W.H. Bickley Director, Global Head of Private Client & Trust Partner, Head of Hong Kong Office [email protected] [email protected] +1 441 299 4996 +852 2842 9556 Christian R. Luthi London Director and Chairman, Head of Bermuda Litigation & Restructuring Eric Flaye [email protected] Associate +1 441 298 7814 [email protected] +44 (0)207 562 0341 Singapore Preetha Pillai Director, Head of Singapore Office [email protected] +65 6603 0707 conyers.com | 1 TRUSTEE ACT 1975 AND RELATED LEGISLATION Preface As a service to our clients, we have prepared this compendium of the Trustee Act 1975 and related legislation. This Compendium includes a consolidated version of the Trustee Act 1975, including related statutes and statutory instruments, incorporating all amendments to date, however, in some instances only relevant provisions are provided. The most recent legislative updates include amendments made by the Trusts (Special Provisions) Amendment Act 2020 and the Trusts (Special Provisions) Amendment (No.
    [Show full text]
  • Fields Listed in Part I. Group (8)
    Chile Group (1) All fields listed in part I. Group (2) 28. Recognized Medical Specializations (including, but not limited to: Anesthesiology, AUdiology, Cardiography, Cardiology, Dermatology, Embryology, Epidemiology, Forensic Medicine, Gastroenterology, Hematology, Immunology, Internal Medicine, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Pathology, Pediatrics, Pharmacology and Pharmaceutics, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiology, Plastic Surgery, Preventive Medicine, Proctology, Psychiatry and Neurology, Radiology, Speech Pathology, Sports Medicine, Surgery, Thoracic Surgery, Toxicology, Urology and Virology) 2C. Veterinary Medicine 2D. Emergency Medicine 2E. Nuclear Medicine 2F. Geriatrics 2G. Nursing (including, but not limited to registered nurses, practical nurses, physician's receptionists and medical records clerks) 21. Dentistry 2M. Medical Cybernetics 2N. All Therapies, Prosthetics and Healing (except Medicine, Osteopathy or Osteopathic Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry, Chiropractic and Optometry) 20. Medical Statistics and Documentation 2P. Cancer Research 20. Medical Photography 2R. Environmental Health Group (3) All fields listed in part I. Group (4) All fields listed in part I. Group (5) All fields listed in part I. Group (6) 6A. Sociology (except Economics and including Criminology) 68. Psychology (including, but not limited to Child Psychology, Psychometrics and Psychobiology) 6C. History (including Art History) 60. Philosophy (including Humanities)
    [Show full text]
  • Trusts (Special Provisions) Amendment Act 2020
    Q UO N T FA R U T A F E BERMUDA TRUSTS (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT ACT 2020 2020 : 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Citation 2 Inserts section 1A 3 Amends section 2A 4 Amends section 6(2) 5 Repeals and replaces section 9 6 Repeals and replaces section 10 7 Repeals and replaces section 11 8 Consequential amendment of section 36G of the Conveyancing Act 1983 WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 to clarify the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of Bermuda trusts and foreign trusts with a connection to Bermuda; to enhance and modernize provisions of the Act with regard to the application of foreign laws and foreign orders to Bermuda trusts; and to make consequential amendments to the Conveyancing Act 1983; Be it enacted by The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Assembly of Bermuda, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Citation 1 This Act, which amends the Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 (the “principal Act”), may be cited as the Trusts (Special Provisions) Amendment Act 2020. Inserts section 1A 2 The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 1 the following new section— 1 TRUSTS (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT ACT 2020 “Interpretation 1A In this Act, unless the context provides otherwise— “Bermuda trust” means a trust governed in whole or in part by the law of Bermuda; “foreign court” means any court or tribunal (including an arbitral tribunal), or any other person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration Disputes
    ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION DISPUTES by Mitchell L. Lathrop August 2012 Internet: http://www.LathropADR.com -1- Copyright, 2012, Mitchell L. Lathrop. All rights reserved. ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION DISPUTES By Mitchell L. Lathrop1 All too often in international arbitration disputes, the party wishing to avoid arbitration or pursue litigation seeks to have arbitral proceedings enjoined. The trend has grown considerably over the last two decades. Typically, litigants will file actions in jurisdictions away from the arbitration in attempts to have a court enjoin the party seeking arbitration from compelling the arbitration to proceed. The remedy for the party seeking arbitration is an anti-suit injunction from the court having jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. The early case of Canadian Filters (Harwich) Limited v. Lear-Siegler, Inc. (“Canadian Filters”),2 pointed the way to the orderly handling of anti-suit injunctions by U.S. courts. Canadian Filters (Harwich) Limited (“Filters”), a Canadian corporation, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment against Lear-Siegler, Inc. (“LSI”), a Delaware corporation, that an LSI patent was invalid and was not being infringed by CFL’s manufacture in Canada and sale in the United States of certain fans. LSI later sued Filters in the Exchequer Court in Canada for infringement of its Canadian patent. Filters moved in the U.S. district court for an injunction against the prosecution of the Canadian suit. LSI responded by moving for a dismissal of the portion of Filters’ complaint that was 1 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Conveyancing Amendment Act 1994
    The Laws of Bermuda Annual Volume of Public Acts 1994 : 21 BERMUDA 1994 : 21 CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT ACT 1994 [Date of Assent 13 July 1994] [Operative Date 13 July 1994] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Conveyancing Act 1983 to make new provisions in respect of certain voidable dispositions: Be it enacted by The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Assembly of Bermuda, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Short title 1 This Act which amends the Conveyancing Act 1983 may be cited as the Conveyancing Amendment Act 1994. Inserts new Part IV A 2 The Conveyancing Act 1983 is amended by inserting at the end of Part IV, immediately after section 36, the following new Part IV A— "PART IV A PROVISIONS AGAINST DISPOSITIONS WITH REQUISITE INTENTION Interpretation 36A (1) In this Part— 1 147 CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT ACT 1994 "appointed day" means the date on which this Part comes into operation; "disposition" means any disposition or series of dispositions of property of any nature whatsoever and however effected, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes any exercise of a power of appointment, any trust, gift, transfer, sale, exchange, demise, assignment, assurance, grant, lease, surrender, conveyance, reconveyance, release, reservation, any purchase or other acquisition, any covenant, contract or option and any compromise or other dealing or arrangement; "eligible creditor" means a person to whom— (a) on, or within two years after, the material date the
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment Act, 28 USC § 2201
    Case 1:17-cv-06947-NGG-CLP Document 22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: <pageID> D/p UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -X TETYANA MOSKALENKO,on her own behalf and on behalf of all other Seafarers similarly situated, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against- 17-CV-6947(NGG) (CLP) CARNIVAL PLC and FLEET MARITIME SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,LTD., Defendants. X NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Tetyana Moskalenko brings this putative class action under the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. § 10313, New York Labor Law, Article 6, §§ 193 and 196-d, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Compl.(Dkt. 1).) Before the court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 3 (the "Convention"), and its implementing legislation. Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 202-208, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)(the "Motion"). (Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 18);^ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss("Mem.") (Dkt. 18-1).) For the reasons that follow. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff Tetyana Moskalenko is a citizen of Ukraine. (Compl.^ 6.) Defendant Carnival PLC is a corporation organized imder the laws of England and Wales, with its principal place of business in Southampton, England. (Id.f 8.) Defendant Fleet Maritime Services, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Defendant Carnival PLC. (Id ^ 9.) 1 Case 1:17-cv-06947-NGG-CLP Document 22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: <pageID> Between 2007 and 2018, Defendant Fleet Maritime Services employed Plaintiff to serve as a Bedroom Stewardess on the ocean liner, Queen Marv 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2020 Ninth Edition Contributing Editor: Ted Greeno Global Legal Insights Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2020, Ninth Edition Contributing Editor: Ted Greeno Published by Global Legal Group GLOBAL LEGAL INSIGHTS – LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2020, NINTH EDITION Contributing Editor Ted Greeno, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Head of Production Suzie Levy Senior Editor Sam Friend Sub Editor Megan Hylton Consulting Group Publisher Rory Smith Chief Media Officer Fraser Allan We are extremely grateful for all contributions to this edition. Special thanks are reserved for Ted Greeno of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for all of his assistance. Published by Global Legal Group Ltd. 59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 207 367 0720 / URL: www.glgroup.co.uk Copyright © 2020 Global Legal Group Ltd. All rights reserved No photocopying ISBN 978-1-83918-067-5 ISSN 2049-3126 This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations. The information contained herein is accurate as of the date of publication. CONTENTS Preface Ted Greeno, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
    [Show full text]
  • She Sells Sanctuary
    FIREWALL LEGISLATION ASHLEY FIFE SHE SELLS SANCTUARY An overview of the current state of Bermuda’s firewall legislation and its recent trust law reforms BY ASHLEY FIFE ABSTRACT WHAT IS AN ASSET PROTECTION TRUST? A trust is not a legal person. An ‘express trust’ • To what extent are assets in trusts existing refers to the legal relationship created, either under the laws of an ‘offshore’ international inter vivos or on death, by a person (the settlor) financial centre (IFC) sheltered from claims made when assets have been placed under the control under other jurisdictions’ laws against settlors, of a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary or for beneficiaries, trustees or trust property? Many a specified purpose.2 IFCs have experienced challenges drafting clear, There is no legal definition of an asset effective and appropriate firewall legislation. protection trust under Bermuda law or under the laws of most other jurisdictions. An asset • This article considers factors relevant to the protection trust might be described as an protection that firewall legislation provides to express trust with specific terms that aim to trust property; primarily from the perspective protect the trust property from claims brought of Bermuda, which recently updated the firewall against the trust’s settlor or beneficiaries. provisions contained in the Trusts (Special The asset protection qualities of the trust Provisions) Act 1989 (the Act). 1 are also impacted by conflict of laws rules of the governing law of the trust and fraudulent • The article also outlines competing policy transfer legislation. However, asset protection considerations and practical realities that is rarely the sole reason a person might wish legislatures weigh up when developing, to form a trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Terrorism (Financial and Other Measures) Act 2004
    ANTI-TERRORISM (FINANCIAL AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2004 BERMUDA 2004 : 31 ANTI-TERRORISM (FINANCIAL AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2004 Date of Assent: 17 December 2004 Operative Date: 7 March 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 9 Disclosure of information: CHAPTER I duty INTRODUCTORY 10 Disclosure of information: 1 Short title and permission commencement 11 Disclosure of information: 2 Interpretation: general regulated and public 3 Terrorism: interpretation sectors 4 Terrorist property: 12 Cooperation with police Interpretation 13 Penalties 14 Forfeitures CHAPTER II 15 Forfeiture of terrorist cash OFFENCES CHAPTER III 5 Fund-raising ACCOUNT MONITORING 6 Use and possession ORDERS 7 Funding arrangements 8 Money laundering 16 Account monitoring orders 1 ANTI-TERRORISM (FINANCIAL AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2004 CHAPTER IV 25 Orders and directions TERRORIST FINANCE 26 Section 55A of Proceeds of OFFENCES: JURISDICTION Crime Act 1997 amended 17 Terrorist finance: things SCHEDULE 1 done outside Bermuda DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION: REGULATED CHAPTER V AND PUBLIC SECTORS GENERAL 18 Police powers SCHEDULE 2 19 Production orders FORFEITURE ORDERS 20 Search warrants 21 Offences of prejudicing SCHEDULE 3 investigation FORFEITURE OF TERRORIST 22 Consent to prosecution CASH 23 Disapplication of section 9 with respect to regulators SCHEDULE 4 etc. ACCOUNT MONITORING 24 Evidence ORDERS WHEREAS it is expedient to make provision for cutting off the financing of terrorism; and for connected purposes: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Assembly of Bermuda, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Chapter I Introductory Short title and commencement 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956
    Q UO N T FA R U T A F E BERMUDA BERMUDA IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION ACT 1956 1956 : 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1 Division of Act into Parts [omitted] 2 Interpretation 3 Meaning of “Commonwealth citizen” and “alien” 4 Construction of references to “Bermudian status” 5 Procedure on appeal to Immigration Appeal Tribunal 6 Inclusion of offences against statutory instruments 7 Procedure for recovery of public charges 7A Effect of grants 8 Conflict with other laws 9 Saving for other Acts and powers of Governor under British Nationality Act 1981 PART II AUTHORITIES FOR EXECUTION OF ACT 10 Finality of decisions by Governor and Cabinet 11 Establishment of Department of Immigration 12 Board of Immigration 13 Minister may consult with or delegate functions to Board of Immigration 13A Establishment of Immigration Appeal Tribunal 13B Duties of Chairman and Deputy Chairman 13C Conflict of interest 13D Determination of Appeals 13E Powers and procedure 13F Costs and Rules 13G Right to appeal decision to the Supreme Court 14 Powers and immunities of immigration officers 1 BERMUDA IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION ACT 1956 15 Duty of police and customs officers in connection with administration of Act PART III ACQUISITION AND ENJOYMENT OF BERMUDIAN STATUS 16 General provisions regarding acquisition and enjoyment of Bermudian status; status of wives, widows and children 17 Acquisition of Bermudian status by persons domiciled for purposes of Immigration Act 1937 18 Acquisition of Bermudian status by birth 18AA Acquisition of Bermudian status by adoption 19 Right of persons with Bermudian connection to Bermudian status 19A Right of spouses to Bermudian status 20 Right of persons within s 16(2) to Bermudian status 20A Right of certain long-term residents to Bermudian status 20B Right to Bermudian status in certain other cases 20C Qualification for grant of Bermudian status under sections 20D to 20F.
    [Show full text]