Why use debt for equity swaps?
Why use Jersey?
What key initial issues must be considered in respect of a new Jersey holding company?
Rise of debt for equity swaps in Jersey

Jersey continues to be the offshore jurisdiction of choice for restructurings involving debt for equity swaps (particularly restructurings of UK and international corporate groups). But what makes Jersey so attractive for this type of transaction?

The Bankruptcy Protector

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?
What is the effect of commencement of Jersey insolvency procedures?
What are the powers of the liquidators or the viscount?
What transactions can be set aside?
How are assets distributed on a creditors' winding up or désastre?

The Security Interests (Jersey) Law (SIJL) 2012 came into force on 2 January 2014, changing the way in which security is created, perfected and enforced over Jersey intangible movable property. This article deals with the enforcement of security interests under the SIJL 2012.

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has put pressure on a wide range of structures and, as a result, lenders, borrowers and other counterparties are looking more closely at the impact of possible insolvency proceedings. As Jersey entities are often used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies, trusts and limited partnerships.

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?

These are:

Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.