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 role of Jersey as a financial centre means that on occasions there will be a requirement for a foreign liquidator or an office-holder under bankruptcy legislation to obtain information or documentation from persons or companies located in the Island. There have been a series of recent court decisions establishing the appropriate levels of co-operation with other jurisdictions.

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. This will commonly 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 and authority to exercise powers in Jersey.

Introduction

There are two principal regimes for corporate insolvency in Jersey: désastre and winding-up. This Briefing seeks to highlight the major features of each and some of the differences between the two.  

Désastre

The law of désastre arose out of the common law of Jersey, although since 1991 the common law has only applied to the extent that express provision is not made in the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the "Désastre Law").

Who may commence the process?

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 Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled that counsel failed to establish "excusable neglect" when it requested additional time to submit an expert witness report after the deadline for that report—as provided for in the court's previously issued scheduling order—had expired.

Reversing a controversial decision and judgment of the bankruptcy court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has held that a group of lenders who received payment in settlement of their defaulted debt from the proceeds of new loans secured by the assets of certain subsidiaries of TOUSA, Inc. which were not themselves liable on that debt, did not receive fraudulent transfers.

The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) voted on December 18 to approve an interim final rule clarifying how the agency will treat certain creditor claims under the new orderly liquidation authority established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Kitchin Associates LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that is no longer in business. Richard Kitchin and his son were the members of Kitchin LLC and each held a 50% ownership interest in the entity. In a bankruptcy court proceeding, the Joan I. Glisson Trust asserted a claim against Mr. Kitchin in the amount of $257,047.63, arising from an unsatisfied mortgage loan to Kitchin LLC, the proceeds of which were used to purchase a property in Pennsylvania. Mr.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.