Bermuda: Recent Decisions On Recognition And Assistance And The Appointment Of Provisional Liquidators

Last Updated: 22 October 2017
Article by Conyers

Bermuda, a leading offshore commercial centre, does not currently have any modern, express statutory provisions relating to recognition and assistance to foreign officeholders. The legislative basis for insolvency proceedings is contained in the Companies Act 1981 (the 'Act') which was itself based on the English Companies Act 1948 and related regulations. Over the past 20 years, it has been required to adapt these provisions, and turn to common law principles, to meet the needs of international businesses looking to restructure.

Over the past 12 months there have been several decisions of the Bermuda Courts which have served to clarify and restate the law which has developed, in particular, as it relates to recognition and assistance. These cases have highlighted that the prior practices in these areas are now beyond doubt. This article explains by reference to these recent cases, the approach of the Bermuda Courts in respect of such matters.

While the cases referred to below have clarified the current common law position, given Bermuda's business model the authors believe that it would be in the interests of the jurisdiction for there to be greater certainty through the adoption of these principles in legislation.1

Assistance in recognition of foreign proceedings

In conjunction with the filing of a Chapter 11 proceeding in Texas2 in respect of, a group of companies which included a Bermuda company, Energy XXI Ltd,3 a petition was filed in Bermuda seeking the winding up of the company and the immediate appointment of a provisional liquidator. The purpose of the Bermuda filing was to obtain the statutory stay of proceedings in Bermuda which automatically arises upon the appointment of a provisional liquidator by the Court. The provisional liquidator's powers under the order were limited; essentially he had an oversight role while the restructuring plan in the US Bankruptcy Court (the 'USBC') was proposed and confirmed. Prior to the confirmation of the US plan of reorganisation, the provisional liquidator made an application seeking a conditional order granting recognition to the US plan once it was confirmed by the USBC. The Equity Committee which, had been appointed by the USBC, objected to the making of the order on a number of grounds, including that the Bermuda Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, and that the appointment of provisional liquidator for the purpose of restructuring did not fall within the provisions of the Act. As part of its submission it argued that the extension of the common law in such circumstances as set out in Cambridge Gas4 had been overturned by subsequent decisions of the English Supreme Court.5

The Bermuda Court dismissed these arguments. In his ruling, the Chief Justice provided clear guidance on the ability to obtain recognition of Chapter 11 proceedings in the Bermuda Courts. The upshot of Energy XXI was that the Bermuda Court has the power to recognise and enforce (by way of a stay of proceedings or otherwise in accordance with local law) a foreign restructuring which has the effect of extinguishing claims against an insolvent Bermudian company. However, it may only properly do so as against parties who have submitted to the personal jurisdiction of the foreign court; and/or with respect to property of the company which (by reason of its situs) is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of the foreign court. He further ruled that it was a perfectly proper use of the winding up provisions of the Bermuda Companies Act to file a petition to wind up a company for the purpose of restructuring and specifically, to assist with a foreign restructuring.

In February 2017 the Court decided the cases of C&J Energy Services Ltd6 and Z-obee Holdings Limited,7 in which it reaffirmed the Court's jurisdiction (and clear desire) to provide necessary assistance to foreign courts in certain circumstances.

In C&J Energy Services Ltd, the Court, referring to Energy XXI, granted recognition of a Chapter 11 plan and granted a permanent injunction in aid of such a plan. In that case, the Court also set out its jurisdiction to authorise an accelerated winding-up procedure in circumstances where the plan confirmed by the USBC provided that the Bermuda company was to be wound up and certain requirements under the Companies Act 1981 (the 'Act') (namely sections 171, 168, 181 and 185) be dispensed with.

The Court held that it is empowered under the Act (as read with the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1982) to short circuit the formal winding-up process where engaging the usual machinery will serve no useful commercial or public purpose. In C&J all known debt and equity interests had apparently been extinguished in the foreign 'main' proceeding8 which the Bermuda proceedings were commenced to support and assist. The Company' affairs had been fully wound-up by the time the winding-up order was sought so it was considered to be an obvious case for the court exercising its powers to expedite the winding up process.

Z-obee Holdings concerned a company that had been in provisional liquidation in Hong Kong since June 2014. The Hong Kong provisional liquidators had identified a potential investor and therefore sought to restructure rather than wind up. The company subsequently presented a petition in Bermuda and applied to appoint the same provisional liquidators in the Bermuda proceedings with their powers restricted to the explicit purpose of effecting the restructuring. In providing reasons for allowing the appointment, the Court reiterated that it has, for 20 years, construed the relevant provisions of the Companies Act so as to enable it to appoint provisional liquidators with limited powers in order to allow the company to implement a restructuring. The fact that it was proposed that the winding-up proceedings be adjourned (and may ultimately be dismissed) did not impact this position. Reiterating the sentiment of both Energy XXI and C&J, the Judge held that the Court has a broad discretion to adjourn a petition for good reason and that power was clearly flexible enough to encompass an adjournment to enable alternatives to a winding-up to be explored. Should the alternatives no longer be realistic, the Court may, on the application of creditors, determine that it's no longer appropriate to continue to adjourn the winding up petition. This is unlikely where the majority of creditors are in favour of the adjournment.

Lifting the automatic stay of proceedings.

The Bermuda court has recently held that it will not lift a stay which it has made in aid of foreign insolvency proceedings where to do so would amount to an abuse of process and would undermine the proceedings in the foreign court. This was in circumstances where the company in question was a Bermuda company. This case exemplifies the willingness of the Bermuda courts to take an international approach to insolvency cases and apply common law principles to assist where appropriate. The facts of the case are set out below.

Celestial Nutrifoods Limited9 is a Bermudian company whose shares were traded on the Singapore stock exchange. The company was wound up by the Singapore Court in 2010 and a provisional liquidator appointed. It was placed into liquidation in Singapore in 2010. In 2011 the Singapore appointed provisional liquidator applied to the Bermuda Court and obtained an order that (i) he be recognised in Bermuda, (ii) the automatic stay of proceedings in Bermuda under section 167(4) of the Bermuda Companies Act be confirmed and imposed;10 and (iii) the Bermuda Court would make an order under s.195 of the Companies Act requiring a party with information about the Company to be examined and/or produce documents in its custody.

In 2016 two of the former directors of the Company applied for leave to bring proceedings against the Company in Bermuda in order to pursue their rights to claim an indemnity against the Company under the bye-laws. The same directors were being sued in Singapore for breach of duty and were relying on the bye-law indemnity in the Singapore proceedings but the point and not yet been ruled upon by the Singapore Courts. In determining the matter, the Chief Justice accepted that the principles governing the lifting of the statutory stay should apply to a stay imposed under the Court's inherent jurisdiction by way of common law assistance to a foreign insolvency court. It was further accepted that the usual approach to lifting the liquidation stay by reference to the character of the claim is that an attempt 'by a debtor to establish non-liability will typically be allowed to be pursued.'11

However, on the facts of the present case, the Chief Justice held that it would, in all the circumstances, be wrong and unfair to permit the applicant directors to sue the Company in Bermuda given that the legal proceedings they wished to bring would undermine the purpose of the recognition order (which they did not contest), by impeding the efforts of the Singapore Court to liquidate the Company. Further the Chief Justice held that the present application was an abuse of the process of the Bermuda Court since the proper time for seeking to invoke the Bermuda Court's jurisdiction in respect of relief sought had long passed. Finally he ruled that the applicants had, by their conduct in the Singapore Proceedings, in any event waived the right to assert that Singapore was an inappropriate forum for adjudicating the Bermuda law issues and the applicants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court and made no attempt to invite that court to decline jurisdiction in relation to the relevant Bermuda law issues.

However, the Bermuda Court will, in appropriate circumstances, issue anti-suit injunctions in cases where there is an arbitration clause in a contract, even in circumstances where one of the parties to the arbitration agreement is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding in the United States.

This was the Court's ruling in Ironshore Insurance Ltd and others v M F Global Assigned Assets LLP and others.12 The Chief Justice based his ruling in that case on the fact that the arbitration agreements provided for arbitration in Bermuda under the relevant Bermuda arbitration legislation, and that there was a high public policy premium placed by the Bermuda Courts on protecting the contractual right to arbitrate, regardless of the place of arbitration.

From a Bermuda law perspective, contractual claims against debtors arising under contracts containing arbitration clauses do not raise any opportunity for contending that the governing arbitration agreement is any way affected by the fact that the counterparty seeking to establish a contractual liability is itself in liquidation. If the insolvent company succeeded in making a recovery from the contractual debtor, the sums recovered would of course be administered and distributed by the relevant insolvency court, in that case the USBC, Southern District of New York.

Who can be appointed a provisional liquidator?

In the last six months there have been two cases in which there was a dispute as to who should be appointed as provisional liquidators. In UpEnergy Development Group Limited13 and Opus Offshore Limited14 the Court helpfully outlined the relevant considerations that it properly took into account when determining who should be appointed.

By way of background it should be noted that Bermuda law provides that the Court, upon the application of the petitioner, or in limited circumstances another party, appoints provisional liquidators. The creditors15 at a meeting convened for that purpose, determine who should be appointed as permanent liquidators. This may explain why there have not, until very recently, been any disputes as to who should act as liquidator on a provisional basis and therefore the court has not had the opportunity to set out the test to be applied in deciding who to appoint.

UpEnergy Development Group Limited was incorporated in Bermuda and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. While the Company was seeking to implement an out-of-court restructuring, a creditor presented winding-up petitions in Hong Kong and then Bermuda and sought the appointment of provisional liquidators; professionals from Hong Kong and Bermuda. The petition was initially adjourned in order to give the Company and the majority of its creditors (who supported the adjournment against the wishes of the petitioning creditor) time to progress the restructuring. On the adjourned date for the hearing of the Petition, the petitioner sought the appointment of FTI as the provisional liquidators along with a Bermuda based insolvency practitioner, John McKenna. The Company sought the appointment of its then restructuring consultants to the Company, RSM Corporate Advisory (Hong Kong) Limited ('RSM'), together with its preferred Bermuda based insolvency practitioner. Following a contested hearing, the Chief Justice approved the petitioning creditor's application to appoint provisional liquidators to monitor the restructuring, but adjourned the question as to who should be appointed. At the adjourned hearing the court appointed RSM (the company's Hong Kong nominee) but also appointed Mr McKenna who was put forward by the petitioner.

While the Court was sympathetic to the petitioning creditor's concerns surrounding the independence of RSM, it found these to be more perceptual than real and recognised the likelihood of wasted costs if RSM was replaced altogether. In addition, the Court noted that there was a risk of tension between any new appointees and the company's management, whereas management was already familiar with RSM. In appointing the Bermuda based professional put forward by the petitioner - to work alongside RSM the court was trying to find a middle ground. In doing this, the Court made it clear that the provisional liquidators should work together to establish an agreed plan of action, noting that any irreconcilable differences could be brought back before the Court for resolution. The Chief Justice noted that the Hong Kong officeholders should be responsible for Hong Kong based work with the Bermuda officeholders being responsible for Bermuda based work. In his ruling, the Chief Justice referred to the primary function of the Bermuda-based officeholder as being to serve as an independent filter within the provisional liquidator team so as to ensure that the restructuring process (which is expected to result in a scheme of arrangement) does not, as the minority wholly unsecured creditors fear, prejudice their interests. While this guidance might be considered novel, it is not surprising, in circumstances where provisional liquidators from different firms are instructed to work 'jointly', the Judge's articulation of the Court's expectations is helpful.

In Opus Offshore Limited the Court was faced with two separate winding up petitions presented by different creditors, each petitioner seeking different provisional liquidators on their petition. The petitioner, in respect of the second petition, filed the petition in its capacity as a creditor, but it was also the majority shareholder of the company.16

In respect of the competing petitions, the Court saw no reason to depart from the general rule, as adopted by the English courts, that priority should be given to the petition presented first. However, this did not impact the determination of who should be appointed as provisional liquidators. In this regard, having established that none of the proposed nominees were conflicted and all were eminently qualified the Judge took into account that: (i) the opposition of the shareholders to a winding up petition or, by parity of reasoning, to the choice of provisional liquidator, will carry less weight than the wishes of the creditors (particularly, in this instance, given the shareholders' involvement with the management of the debtor company); and (ii) disputed debts of supporting creditors will carry less weight than they would if their claims had not been disputed by the Company. With this in mind and noting that the choice of provisional liquidators is a matter for the Court's discretion, the Judge proceeded with the first petitioner's nomination reasoning that such appointees were most likely to command the confidence of a majority of those who will seek to prove in the liquidation in light of the fact that a large number of creditors had supported such appointments.


While there is a drive to make legislative amendments to modernise the law, in particular in relation to recognition, there is now a credible body of case law that has developed to plug the gap left by the statutory regime. This case law demonstrates the Court's desire to find practical solutions to facilitate restructurings of Bermuda companies, with due deference to foreign proceedings and the provision of appropriate assistance. As shown by the cases above, by operating under a less rigid statutory framework, Bermuda Courts are able to be more flexible in their approach to these issues.


1 The Restructuring and Insolvency Specialists Association of Bermuda is currently reviewing the legislation with a view to proposing the adoption of provisions relating to restructuring, foreign assistance and winding up of foreign entities.

2 Chapter 11 is the chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code which affords a company or group of companies to restructure under the supervision of the relevant Bankruptcy Court.

3 In the Matter of Energy XXI Ltd [2016] SC (Bda) 79 Com (15 August 2016).

4 Cambridge Gas Transport Corp v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings Plc [2007] 1 A.C. 508.

5 Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 35 and Rubin v Eurofinance [2012] UKSC 46.

6 In the Matter of C & J Energy Services Ltd [2017] SC (Bda) 20 Com (28 February 2017).

7 In the matter of Z-obee Holdings Limited [2017] SC (Bda) 16 Com (21 February 2017).

8 It should be noted that Bermuda has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

9 In the matter of Celestial Nutrifoods Limited (in liquidation) [2017] SC (Bda) 10 Civ (31 January 2017).

10 It should be noted that the basis for the stay relied upon by the Chief Justice in his 2011 order has since held by the Privy Council to be wrong in law (Singularis Holdings Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2015] AC 1675).

11 At Paragraph 18.

12 Ironshore Insurance Ltd and others v M F Global Assigned Assets LLP and others [2017] SC (Bda) 6 Com (23 December 2016).

13 In The Matter of upEnergy Development Group Limited [2016] Bda LR 101.

14 In the matter of Opus Offshore Limited [2017] SC (Bda) 14 Com (17 February 2017).

15 Bermuda law provides for the provisional liquidator to convene meetings of creditors and contributories to determine who should be appointed by the Court as permanent liquidators.

16 In Bermuda there is no subordination of shareholder creditor claims, save those where the claim arises in a shareholder's capacity as a shareholder.

Originally published by International Corporate Rescue, Volume 14, Issue 5.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions