The Royal Court has recently handed down the final decision in the matter of Eagle Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation).[1] In this decision, the Royal Court of Guernsey provided guidance and assistance to the joint liquidators regarding a distribution of surplus funds.
To proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used. These start with the arrest of a debtor's goods and enable all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
In order to proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used which start with the arrest of a debtor's goods but which allow all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
Arrêts
Once judgment is obtained against a debtor, the 'arresting creditor', will either:
A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.
Saisie (meaning "to seize") is a court driven, Guernsey customary law process, governed by the Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order, 1952. It is a three stage post judgment process which enables a creditor to enforce their rights against the debtor's realty in Guernsey.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina