The Court of Appeal of Jersey has now considered in an appeal against the Royal Court’s decision of 10 January 2018 the case of a UK trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”), whose appointment had been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who had been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, who was later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes (in this case an Information Notice issued by HMRC pursuant to Schedule 36 of the UK Finance Act 2008 (the “

Increasing cash flow pressure on many businesses has resulted in a heightened risk for directors that a company may be wrongfully trading and personal liability may then accrue to the directors.

Increasing cash flow pressure on many businesses has resulted in a heightened risk for directors that a company may be wrongfully trading and personal liability may then accrue to the directors.

In an important judgment published last week, the Royal Court of Jersey has provided guidance to trustees and other holders of fiduciary powers in relation to the exercise of powers when a trust is considered to be “insolvent”. Counsel in the case was unable to find any relevant authority on this subject in any other trusts jurisdiction, so this may well be one of the first cases to deal with this issue.

In this case, the firm was instructed by the English liquidators of Arck LLP (in liquidation) to assist in the recovery of assets misappropriated from a large number of British investors and channelled through Jersey corporate and trust structures as part of a fraudulent collective investment scheme.

The Royal Court of Jersey was recently required to consider its approach when a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in a foreign jurisdiction (the “Trustee”), whose appointment has been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who has been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, is later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes.

The recent English judgment of System Building Services Group Limited¹ is an important decision for directors of offshore companies in 'soft touch' provisional liquidation, and highlights the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of the order appointing provisional liquidators for the purposes of ascertaining the scope of directors’ duties that apply during the course of their post-appointment restructuring efforts.

With the States of Guernsey's approval yesterday of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the "Ordinance"), Guernsey took a step towards further enhancing its reputation as a robust jurisdiction for restructuring and insolvency.

On 24 October 2012 the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance S.A. [2012] UKSC 46, reversing the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal which had significantly altered the landscape of cross-border insolvency.

Alexandra Vinogradova v (1) Elena Vinogradova, (2) Sergey Vinogradov (BVIHCMAP 2018/052)