Offshore Litigation Blog

Harneys successfully secured the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution over a Cyprus private company, in order to assist in the execution of a judgment against a villa in Limassol Marina.

Fraudsters sometimes choose offshore vehicles in their illegal schemes under the mistaken belief that the misappropriated assets will not be found or that the victims of fraud will not be able to identify the fraudsters.

On 17 February 2025, the BVI Court recognised a Committee, appointed by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, with responsibility over the financial affairs of a family member who lacks capacity and has movable assets in the BVI.

There has been a significant increase in the number of lenders enforcing against secured assets in the BVI, which has entailed an uptick in the appointment of out-of-court receivers. This guide highlights the types of disputes arising out of such appointments.

The enforcement toolkit available in the BVI is similar to many other common law jurisdictions. However, the BVI Courts have tailored their approach to meet the challenges a creditor may face when looking to enforce over a complex structure.

Historically receiverships were viewed as a draconian remedy of last resort. Today, however, receivers are appointed to address a wide range of legal circumstances. This guide summarises key features of the court-appointed receiver.

It is an established principle of insolvency law that the passage of time does not prevent claims which were not statute-barred at the date of insolvency from being proved later during the insolvency, even though the limitation period has in the meantime expired. This principle derives from the English decision of General Rolling Stock.

In the long running litigation concerning The Port Fund (the Partnership), a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, the Cayman Grand Court recently clarified the principles concerning applications for approval of court appointed receivers’ remuneration and expenses in the absence of any formal rules or process.

In the High Court, Lifestyle Equities, (Lifestyle) successfully claimed that Hornby had infringed their trademarks. Lifestyle also successfully sued the Ahmeds personally, alleging they were jointly liable by sharing a common design with Hornby. Trademark infringement uses strict liability, which meant that there was no need for Lifestyle to prove that the Ahmeds knew of or intended the infringement.

In the recent decision of In the Matter of Bo Run SPC, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered whether it was permissible to file a composite petition to appoint receivers to a number of segregated portfolios within a single segregated portfolio company as opposed to filing separate petitions for each segregated portfolio.

In the recent decision of G Trust, the Cayman Islands Grand Court had little hesitation in directing that the trustee could apply to restrain certain beneficiaries from pursuing an application in Hong Kong to appoi…

On 24 Mar 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Mitsuji Konoshita and A.P.F. Group Co Ltd v JTrust Asia Pte Ltd (BVIHCMAP 2020/0017), leaving helpful guidance on discharging freezing and receivership orders from material changes in circumstances.