Chinese investment structured directly or indirectly through BVI trusts is on the rise
Conyers' Raymon Davern reports on the influx of investment from China being structured through trusts in the British Virgin Islands
June 21, 2012 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
Conyers' Raymon Davern reports on the influx of investment from the PRC being structured through BVI trusts
In recent years, there has been a marked increase in specifically Chinese investment and personal wealth being structured through British Virgin Islands (BVI) corporate and trust structures, both indirectly through Hong Kong and Singapore and directly from financial centres in the People's Republic of China (PRC) itself.
In 2003, the BVI's trust legislation was substantially revised in a number of important respects, effective 1 March 2004. Key among these for present purposes was the enactment of the Virgin Islands Special Trusts Act 2003 (VISTA) and a new section 83A of the Trustee Act which, among other things, clarified the BVI rules of private international law concerning transfers of foreign assets into BVI trusts.
VISTA was designed to allow for the establishment of a valid trust of the shares of a BVI business company in which (a) the trustee's duty of prudence in investment is excluded so as to allow for and, in an administrative sense, require, retention of the shares for the duration of the trust (ie, even during a period when a prudent trustee acting in the interests of the beneficiaries would sell the investment in order to make a profit or avoid a loss), (b) the trustee's power and duty of intervention in the management of the company could be modified or even excluded and (c) in which a settlor could specify in advance and for the duration of the trust how rights attaching to the shares, especially voting rights which control appointments to the board of the company, should be exercised (Office of Director Rules).
VISTA has proven popular because of the very high degree of indirect control over assets which have been settled into trust that the legislation permits: the Office of Director Rules may be drafted so that the settlor's appointees are appointed to the board and, of course, removed in accordance with his wishes, thus leaving the settlor in de facto control of the asset settled into trust.
Since the subject matter of a VISTA trust must be shares in a BVI business company, there is no difficulty from the point of view of private international law about their transfer into trust. To the extent that it is desired to put other assets into trust, these can continue to be held directly by, for example, a foreign operating subsidiary whose shares are acquired by the BVI business company in exchange for shares in the latter.
It may, however, be desired to place assets other than the shares of a BVI business company directly into an offshore trust. An ordinary trust may be established under BVI law for this purpose. How are such foreign assets to be transferred into it? The answer is comprehensively set out in section 83A of the Trustee Act, which was drafted in consultation with a leading UK academic in the field of private international law.
Section 83A provides first, by subsection (8), that not merely the formal and essential validity of a disposition, but also the general capacity of a transferor to make a disposition of intangible property, shall be determined in accordance with the First Schedule and, if not provided for in the First Schedule, in accordance with the law under which the property came into existence; and, second, by subsection (9), that the capacity to subject property to a trust, as distinct from the capacity to dispose of that property, shall be determined in accordance with the law governing the essential validity of the trust. Where the trust in question is a BVI trust, this necessarily means that no question of the transferor's capacity in this second sense will arise as a matter of BVI.
As regards general capacity, however, that is to be determined pursuant to subsection (8) along with questions of formal and essential validity under the rubric of the First Schedule which provides a table consisting of two columns. The one on the left identifies seven different categories of intangible property and that on the right the law which shall determine "questions of essential and formal validity and capacity". Where listed assets are in question, the category that will be of primary relevance is the first, namely that comprising "shares in a body corporate". The effect of the corresponding provision in the right hand column is that questions of essential and formal validity and capacity will be determined by the law of the state of incorporation. Where, therefore, the listed assets in question are those of PRC incorporated entities, the necessary formalities and proper mode of transfer of such assets to a trustee to be held on the terms of a BVI trust are, quite simply, those applying under PRC law, the transferor's general capacity to dispose of the property being likewise determined but the particular capacity to settle property on trust being a matter of BVI law (and thus not an issue).
Where, however, foreign securities are listed on a Chinese exchange, the applicable law to determine formal and essential validity and general capacity will therefore be the law of the place of incorporation of the foreign entity whose securities are listed (subject to the provision concerning change of place of incorporation) but the question of capacity to settle property on trust will remain a matter of BVI law exclusively and thus, from the BVI point of view, not an issue.
Raymond Davern is head of private client at Conyers Dill & Pearman in the BVI.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKPMG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250