In a recent unreported decision, ENRC NV v. Zamin Ferrous Limited (2015) JRC 217, the Jersey Royal Court demonstrated its consent to ensuring that judgment creditors can enforce their judgments worldwide. In this case, the judgment creditor applied for an ex-parte order to freeze assets and to compel the judgment debtor to answer questions about its assets and assets held by its subsidiaries. The answers revealed two agreements had been entered into pursuant to which certain assets held by subsidiaries had been transferred to third parties.

Introduction

With the continuing development of sophisticated cross-border financial transactions, certain contractual practices have evolved and, with the passage of time, become recognised as standard in the relevant marketplace. Financial centres such as Jersey monitor such developments with a view to implementing policy and/or legislation as may be required or desirable to maintain and enhance the reputation of Jersey as a jurisdiction of choice for such cross-border transactions.  

The draft Banking Business (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law 201- has been adopted by the States of Jersey and is awaiting the approval of the Privy Council. The draft Law will amend the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991 to provide for offences and impose duties under the Depositors Compensation Scheme.

The Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 came into force on 6 November 2009, establishing a compensation scheme providing individual depositors with protection of up to £50,000 per person, per Jersey banking group, in the event of the bankruptcy of a Jersey bank.

In the matter of the representation of Anglo Irish Asset Finance [2010] JRC087

This is the latest decision of the Royal Court in relation to an application by a UK creditor (a bank) for a letter of request to be issued to the English High Court requesting that an administration order be made in respect of a Jersey company.

GRATA, - 2020,

GRATA Monthly Summary, January-February 2020, Kyrgyzstan

:

Table of content:

1 On clarification on the procedure for installing and , using equipment designed to accept payments using bank payment cards or electronic money

2 , On prohibition of activities related to geological

exploration for the purpose of prospecting, exploration

, , and development of uranium and thorium deposits in

the Kyrgyz Republic

3 " On adoption of the Law on the national budget of the

Nuo banko „Snoras“ bankroto paskelbimo praėjo beveik penkeri metai. 2011 m. lapkričio 16 dieną Lietuvos bankas paskelbė „Snoro“ veiklos apribojimą, o lapkričio 24 dieną kreipėsi į teismą dėl banko bankroto.

Dauguma asmenų, turėjusių bankrutavusiame banke indėlius ir indėlių sertifikatus, jau gavo 100 000 Eur neviršijančias draudimo išmokas. Tačiau banko obligacijų turėtojai liko nuošalyje – jų įsigytų obligacijų atžvilgiu banko „Snoras“ nemokumo rizika nebuvo draudžiama, todėl ir draudimo išmoka mokama nebuvo.

According to the Court of Appeal, instead of entirely putting an end to bankruptcy operations, the decision to close the bankruptcy case only "suspends the bankruptcy process", while restoring  individual rights to creditors. The appeal judges further indicated that "the bankruptcy regime stops existing, but the debtor remains under the threat of the re-opening of bankruptcy operations, which virtually survive".

Capital call subscription credit facilities (each, a “Facility”) continued their positive momentum in 2013  and had an excellent year as an asset class. As in the recent past, investor (“Investor”) funding performance remained as pristine as ever, and the only exclusion events we are aware of involved funding  delinquencies by noninstitutional Investors (in many cases subsequently cured). Correspondingly, we  were not consulted on a single Facility payment event of default in 2013.

Luxembourg court decisions allow secured lenders to enforce Gecina share pledge.

A controversial insolvency dispute winding its way through courts in Spain and Luxembourg may reinforce the rights of secured lenders to enforce financial collateral within an insolvency proceeding. While the recent Luxembourg Tribunal decision enforcing a financial collateral pledge for payment default appears to favor the secured lenders, a potentially contradictory decision from the Spanish Commercial Courts throws the issue into uncertain territory.