The doctrine of substantive consolidation (generally- the power of a bankruptcy court to consolidate the assets and liabilities of affiliated entities in bankruptcy) is a recognized remedy exercised by bankruptcy courts – one that strikes fear into the hearts of many lenders. Justifiably so. The doctrine can be employed to order the substantive consolidation of related-debtor entities in bankruptcy and it can also be employed to substantively consolidate the assets of a debtor in bankruptcy with those of a related entity that is not a debtor in bankruptcy.

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary and compulsory winding up under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover striking off companies or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.

The mechanics of a voluntary winding up

1 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS GUERNSEY JERSEY CAPE TOWN HONG KONG LONDON SINGAPORE WWW.CAREYOLSEN.COM FEBRUARY 2017 INVESTMENT FUNDS & INSURANCE CELL COMPANIES IN GUERNSEY 2 / FEBRUARY 2017 | Cell Companies in Guernsey INTRODUCTION This note summarises Guernsey law relating to protected and incorporated cell companies. For more detailed information on protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies please see the separate briefing notes on each.

This briefing note describes the key features of the incorporated cell company (“ICC”) and summarises the formation, structure and liquidation procedures particular to this type of company.

Key features

The BVI Commercial Court (the Honourable Justice Davis-White QC [Ag]) has recently ordered the appointment of liquidators over Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Limited, Parkmond Group Limited, and PARD Trade Limited (the “Companies”), three BVI incorporated companies forming a key part of the China Fishery Group.

The applications were unsuccessfully contested on the principal ground that the appointment of liquidators would irretrievably damage the prospects of a wider, global restructuring of the Pacific Andes Group.

This briefing note provides an outline of the different processes of voluntary winding up and striking off under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) (the “Law”). It does not cover compulsory winding up or the specific provisions on winding up of protected cell companies and incorporated cell companies. Further information on the effect of the Law on the winding up of these company structures can be found in our separate briefing notes on those subjects.

Voluntary Winding Up

In a 2-1 opinion, the Second Circuit overruled the district court in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., finding no violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in connection with an out-of-court debt restructuring.

Background

The European Commission (EC) announced proposals on 22 November 2016, which are intended to harmonise national insolvency laws across the EU through a proposed directive “on preventative restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures” (Directive). The Directive will need to be passed by the European Council and European Parliament. Then, EU Member States would be required to adopt the Directive’s provisions into their respective national laws within two years from the date of its entry into force.

The Barton doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Barton v. Barbour, 104 US 126 (1881)), generally prohibits suits against receivers and bankruptcy trustees in forums other than the appointing courts, absent appointing court's permission. It applies to suits that involve actions done in the officers' official capacity and within their authority as officers of the court.

In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.