Introduction

Background

The concept of cell companies was first introduced to Jersey in February 2006. In addition to the widely recognised structure of a protected cell company, Jersey also introduced a completely new concept - the incorporated cell company.  

The key issue which differentiates both types of cell company from traditional (non-cellular) companies is that they provide a flexible corporate vehicle within which assets and liabilities can be ring-fenced, or segregated, so as only to be available to the creditors and shareholders of each particular cell.

On 28 March 2011 the Social Security Department issued guidance for Insolvency Practitioners on the Temporary Insolvency Scheme. The Temporary Insolvency Scheme was set up in 2009, in the wake of well-publicised insolvencies such as that of Woolworths Plc.  

The guidance states:

The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.

This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.

Background

Few now remember that Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act can trace its origins to the afternoon of 23 July 1991. For the past year, the unlisted property trust industry had been in meltdown. The value of the assets held by the industry had fallen over 20%. Investors were scrambling to get out, and collapses seemed imminent.

In insolvency circles, the word "success" is definitely a relative term. Often it only means that a complete meltdown of the company's business has been averted, or that employees have at least received their statutory entitlements on their way out the door.

The ABC Learning Centre story has, however, definitely been a success by any measure – including some measures which are not generally part of the metrics of insolvency.[1] In order to see why this insolvency administration deal was both unique and uniquely successful, it is necessary to understand some of the background.

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

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.