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.

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.

In the matter of the Representation of Gregory Branch and Lee Manning, Joint Liquidators of AAA Holdings Limited (in liquidation) [2009]JRC110

This judgment is of interest as being the first occasion on which the Royal Court in Jersey was asked to sanction the compromise of a claim under Article 170 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law").

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.

A winding up on 'just and equitable' grounds is a fast evolving remedy which allows a company to avoid a désastre. As in England and certain other jurisdictions, it is a flexible tool, with certain generally accepted grounds for the court exercising its discretion to grant the remedy, such as the need for an investigation into the affairs of the company concerned. Unlike désastre, it is not dependent on the cash flow insolvency of the company concerned and the Royal Court has a broad discretion to tailor the powers it may grant a liquidator to the needs of the situation.

The rule that creditors generally cannot continue to sue a company once a winding up order has been made has been applied to companies being wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds. This is not explicit in the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 but has been ordered by the Court to give efficacy to the process. One of the features of winding up is that it is generally regarded as better to marshall claims against the company through a liquidator-operated adjudication procedure.

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].