To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal held in Throne Capable
Investment Limited v Agile Star Group Limited
1 that the
failure to set aside a statutory demand does not constitute
misconduct, an unreasonable act or an exceptional circumstance so
as to warrant departure from the general rule that costs follow the
event.
Introduction
The British Virgin Islands (the
BVI) insolvency
regime provides for the issuance of statutory demands against BVI
companies. Where a statutory demand is not set aside within 14
days, a creditor can apply to appoint a liquidator to the alleged
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
A recent ruling by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has confirmed
the possibility of ratifying a foreign decision without the need
for a Brazilian company to be served with process in the lawsuit by
letter rogatory - an instrument to communicate between Judiciaries
in different countries. The STF upheld the ruling of the Superior
Court of Justice (STJ), releasing an American company from this
obligation once and for all.
In the period from 1 January 2015 to 30 September this year, the
STJ judged 3,576 requests to ratify a foreign ruling. Of these,
Summary
Geneva Trust
Company v IDF and MF or
Re Stingray
Trust
Judgment) is the
latest in a line of decisions of the Cayman Islands courts
considering the meaning and scope of the Cayman firewall
provisions. The Grand Court has now provided important
clarification about the effect of Section 90 of the Trusts Act
2020
2 - that it does not operate to
bestow exclusive jurisdiction on the Cayman Islands courts (as
previous cases have suggested) and that common law principles of
forum non conveniens still have relevance and application
in the context of disputes concerning Cayman Islands trusts.
The Court also provided further guidance on the application of
In Wastech, the SCC sought to clarify the scope of the duty to exercise contractual discretionary powers in good faith previously recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew (2014 SCC 71).