Introduction

Jersey entities have proved popular as vehicles for a wide variety of asset holding structures, such as those holding real property. The modern legal framework and tax neutral regime are attractive to professionals structuring transactions for their clients. As a consequence, lending institutions are frequently requested to put in place credit arrangements for Jersey entities. To protect its position in these circumstances, a lending institution needs to be aware of the material differences that exist between English law and Jersey law.

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Introduction

In the current economic climate, there has been increased interest from clients and their advisers in using offshore companies in cross-border restructurings. The use of offshore companies in restructurings is often driven by tax and structuring advice, where there is a desire to continue the group operating as a going concern and to achieve a favourable outcome for creditors (usually outside of formal insolvency proceedings).

Such companies can offer a number of advantages when used as part of a restructuring plan, including:

Key Issues

The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues:

There has been a considerable amount of interest from clients recently on putting Jersey companies holding UK real property and other assets into English administration. Where a Jersey company and its creditors intend to rescue the company as a going concern, or English administration would achieve a better realisation for creditors than a désastre or a winding up, it may be advantageous to commence English administration.