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 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. Such requests may 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 of such practitioners and to authorise them to exercise powers in Jersey.

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").

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.

Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue:

Elaborating on its Resorts decision of ten years ago concerning payments to shareholders in a public leveraged buyout,1 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in In re Plassein Int’l, Corp.2 that the “settlement payment” exemption of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code also insulates selling shareholders in a private LBO from fraudulent transfer liability.

Hedge funds and other investors in debt or equity securities often form unofficial “ad hoc” committees through which they actively participate in chapter 11 cases. Recent decisions affirm that such ad hoc committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 – including the nature and amounts of claims or interests held by members and other details. What about a “group” that says it’s a lot less than an ad hoc committee and therefore, outside the Rule?

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).