The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.

Recoupment is an equitable remedy – not expressly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code – that permits the offset of mutual debts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Unlike typical setoff, if recoupment applies, prepetition debts can be set off against postpetition debts. A recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court demonstrates that the availability of recoupment often depends on how the court defines the contours of the “same transaction or occurrence” requirement.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently faced a question of first impression: whether an allowed postpetition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. In concluding that it can, the court took a closer look at the nature of a preference claim.

Facts and Arguments

Courts have applied various standards for determining when a “claim” arises for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, particularly in the tort context. A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania illustrates that the standard may differ depending on whether the claim in question is a creditor’s claim against the debtor’s estate or a debtor’s claim against a third-party.

Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

The liquidity crisis has increased the need for creative procedures to avoid sudden death bankruptcy in order to salvage existing value.

A Jersey company or a company incorporated elsewhere but administered in Jersey may become involved in insolvency procedures under Jersey law or the law of a jurisdiction outside Jersey.  

The role of Jersey as a financial centre means that on occasions there will be a requirement for a foreign liquidator or an office-holder under bankruptcy legislation to obtain information or documentation from persons or companies located in the Island. There have been a series of recent court decisions establishing the appropriate levels of co-operation with other jurisdictions.

The Royal Court of Jersey can receive requests from outside Jersey by courts prescribed under the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 or based on principles of comity. This will commonly involve a Jersey company or any other company with assets or information situated in Jersey. Insolvency practitioners appointed under a law or by a court outside Jersey will have no authority, as a matter of Jersey law to act in Jersey. It is normal therefore for an application to be made for recognition of the appointment and authority to exercise powers in Jersey.

Introduction

There are two principal regimes for corporate insolvency in Jersey: désastre and winding-up. This Briefing seeks to highlight the major features of each and some of the differences between the two.  

Désastre

The law of désastre arose out of the common law of Jersey, although since 1991 the common law has only applied to the extent that express provision is not made in the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the "Désastre Law").

Who may commence the process?

A Jersey company or one of its creditors may wish the company to be placed into administration in England under Schedule B1 of the UK's Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act").