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 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:
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.
Q4 2020 and Q1 2021 saw some significant developments in offshore restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery, with the passage of new legislation and the handing down of judgments providing welcome clarification on laws relevant to practitioners in this area.
Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,
English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.