There is currently no administration process in Jersey. However, an interesting area of development is the gradual trend towards seeking English administration for Jersey incorporated companies with assets or businesses in England. This offers a possible alternative for a company to winding up on just and equitable grounds where it is desirable to keep the company as a going concern and certain pre-requisites, as a matter of English law, are met (primarily that administration offers a chance of a better realisation for creditors than winding up).
If a company in liquidation has a claim against another entity, can the liquidator compromise the claim on his own or must he do so with reference to the creditors to whom the settlement proceeds will make their way? That was answered with the Royal Court saying that creditors should ordinarily be given the opportunity to appear at the hearing at which the compromise is sanctioned [link to 2009 JRC 110].
The executor of the estate of the deceased who had been the principal mover behind the Belgravia Group, was faced with two novel circumstances. First, the estate appeared totally insolvent but yet the executor had no set of rules to deal with creditors (the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990) does not apply to the property of a deceased). The Royal Court considered the matter and ordered a process which mirrored the rules applying to a désastre.
The current position
In one of a number of cases in which Bedell Cristin has acted for English trustees in bankruptcy who have sought recognition in Jersey for the purposes of seeking documents from Jersey trustees in order to trace assets of the bankrupt, the court was asked to recognise the trustee, even though the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy was a foreign revenue (HMRC), whose claim comprised 99.8% of all claims against the bankrupt. There is a long established rule in England, Jersey and elsewhere which prevents enforcement of foreign revenue claims.
Article L 611-4 to L 611-15 of the French Commerce Code.
Act n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005, as completed and amended, has created a new out-of-court settlement process known under French law as “Conciliation,” replacing the former amicable settlement or “règlement amiable.”
- In re TOUSA, Inc., 408 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009). Prepetition lenders could not assert third-party claims against the debtors for breach of contract based on loan document representation that debtor borrowers, on a consolidated basis, would be solvent after the financing transaction because such claims did not depend on the outcome of the fraudulent transfer claims of the creditors, which asserted that individual debtor subsidiaries were insolvent.
- In re Metaldyne Corp., 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.
Introduction
Background
The concept of cell companies was first introduced to Jersey in February 2006. In addition to the widely recognised principle of the protected cell company ("PCC"), a new concept of incorporated cell company ("ICC"), the first of its kind, was also implemented.