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
Background
In a recent High Court decision, it was ruled that the liquidator not only failed in his application before the court, but in bringing forward an application that was 'doomed to fail', the liquidator was acting negligently and breached his duty of care to the company as liquidator. As a result, the liquidator was held personally liable for the costs of the application.
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?
Introduction
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
Domestic procedures
Cross-border procedures
Creditors
Avoidance transactions
Contributions to the liquidation estate and liability of officers
This article answers key questions regarding restructuring and insolvency in Guernsey.
This article answers key questions regarding restructuring and insolvency in Guernsey.
Question |
|---|
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.