Jersey is one of the primary jurisdictions for the structuring of investment funds. It is also a popular jurisdiction for the establishment of carried interest vehicles, given the regulatory clarity on treatment of employee incentive and carry schemes.
Ogier regularly assists fund managers where a non-Jersey domiciled individual holding shares or limited partnership interests in a Jersey vehicle dies without leaving a separate Jersey will, giving rise to cross-border probate issues. Often such shares or interests have significant value.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.
Key takeaways
Introduction
Immoveable property
Application for recognition
Consultation with viscount
Letter of request
Issuing representation
Alternative orders
Timescale
Introduction
In the current COVID-19 environment it is likely that there will be more businesses becoming insolvent. Some of those businesses will have an interest in Jersey property. For example as owners of Jersey property or holders of a lease of retail premises situated in the Island. The business may also have locally employed employees to consider.
In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?