Statutory demands in the BVI: no longer truly optional?
英属维京群岛的法定要求偿债书：不再是非必要的？
Statutory demands in the British Virgin Islands have long been a useful option for creditors of defaulting companies. Properly utilised, they either secure payment of the outstanding debt or provide the creditor with the benefit of a statutory presumption of insolvency to assist in their application to appoint a liquidator over the company.
英属维京群岛的法定要求偿债书一直都是违约公司债权人的有用选项。若妥善使用，它可以保障未偿付的债务得以偿还，或者依照公司清盘法律债务人将被视为无力偿付，以此协助债权人申请任命公司的清算人。
However, in the light of the recent decisions in Rangecroft Ltd v Lenox International Holdings Ltd [1] , IS Investment Fund Segregated Portfolio Company v Fair Cheerful Ltd [2] , and most recently in A Creditor v Anonymous Company Ltd [3], a reassessment is required as to whether the procedure is truly optional.
The Court in Lenox International highlighted the importance of following the "two-step process" to wind up a company on the basis of its insolvency. In its view, the creditor should first serve a statutory demand before then issuing an application for the appointment of a liquidator. Although the Court recognised that a creditor is not obliged to serve a statutory demand, it went on to make it clear that the Court did not encourage proceeding without a statutory demand and asked whether there was a "good reason" for "failing" to serve a statutory demand. The underlying rationale was informed by a desire to prevent the debtor from being prejudiced by the creditor's failure to serve a statute demand in the context of an arbitration clause of disputed effect. In the Court's view, the "two-step process" provided an important safeguard for the company.
This marks a shift in approach and language which was also echoed in Fair Cheerful. In circumstances where a creditor may be called to upon to explain its "failure" to serve a statutory demand, it is arguable that the procedure is no longer truly optional in the traditional sense. Rather, the reasoning in Lenox International and Fair Cheerful suggests that the statutory demand route should be regarded as the default position and sounds a note of caution that a creditor will be required to justify electing to proceed directly to an application to appoint a liquidator without first serving a statutory demand.
Most recently, in A Creditor v Anonymous Company Ltd, Jack J reaffirmed his view in Rangecroft and Fair Cheerful. In particular, he opined that the Court will generally not exercise its discretion to appoint liquidators if as a result of the failure to serve a statutory demand, the debtor was deprived of an opportunity to refer the matter to arbitration. [4]
This will be unwelcome news to creditors who previously would often proceed directly to an application to appoint a liquidator. It is likely to result in an increased use of the statutory demand procedure and, as a result, more disputes coming before the BVI Court by way of application to set aside a statutory demand, as opposed to at the stage of a contested application to appoint a liquidator.
For more information or for a copy of the Court's decisions, please feel free to contact the authors using the details displayed.
但是，在Rangecroft Ltd v Lenox International Holdings Ltd 以及IS Investment Fund Segregated Portfolio Company v Fair Cheerful Ltd 两件案件的最新判决中，法院指出需要重新评估该程序是否是非必要的。
在Lenox International一案中，法院强调了在公司清盘过程中遵循“两步程序”的重要性。以此债权人应在申请任命清算人前先送达法定要求偿债书。尽管法院认可债权人没有义务送达法定要求偿债书，但法院明确表示不鼓励这种做法，而且会询问是否有“适当的理由” “未有”送达法定要求偿债书。目的是为了防止在对债务有争议而双方受仲裁条款约束的情况下，债务人的利益因债权人未有送达法定要求偿债书受到影响。法院认为，“两步程序”就此为公司提供了重要的保障。
这个标志着方法和言辞转变的判决也反映在Fair Cheerful一案中。若债权人需要解释为何“未能”送达法定要求偿债书，该程序是否还是传统意义上的非必需的应受到置疑。 Lenox International 和Fair Cheerful 两案的判决表示，送达法定要求偿债书应被视为默认做法，并告诫债权人需要为其选择直接申请任命清算人而非先送达法定要求偿债书提供理由。
由于债权人以往经常直接申请任命清算人，对于债权人来说，这将是个不受欢迎的消息。而这也可能会增加法定要求偿债书的使用，结果将是英属维京群岛法院会收到更多的搁置法定要求偿债书的申请，而不是在申请任命清算人的阶段提出争议。
有关更多信息或参看法院判决书，请以显示的通讯方法与作者联系。
