Introduction

Jersey entities have proved popular as vehicles for a wide variety of asset holding structures, such as those holding real property. The modern legal framework and tax neutral regime are attractive to professionals structuring transactions for their clients. As a consequence, lending institutions are frequently requested to put in place credit arrangements for Jersey entities. To protect its position in these circumstances, a lending institution needs to be aware of the material differences that exist between English law and Jersey law.

1. Purpose

This client briefing has been prepared in order to assist directors of companies which have listed debt securities on The International Stock Exchange (TISE or theExchange) pursuant to the listing rules (the Listing Rules) of The International Stock Exchange Authority Limited (the Authority). The Listing Rules are available on TISE's website.

Key Points

• COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales 
• Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved

The Facts

English Liquidators of a fraudulent investment company were able to navigate a complex web of defunct companies and trusts to realise assets in a Jersey company.

The partners of Arck LLP (in Liquidation), registered in England ("Arck"), an investment firm, were convicted of fraud and forgery. Richard Clay, thought to be the driving force of the scandal, is now serving a 10 years 10 months prison sentence and his deputy Kathryn Clark received a two year suspended sentence.

The Royal Court in Jersey has a varied and challenging workload. The cases that have come before it this quarter certainly live up to that description. Here we discuss just a handful of cases that the Royal Court has determined, that, whilst in some respects are unremarkable, in other respects serve to illustrate the breadth of the experience that the Royal Court judiciary possesses.

Representation of Private Equity Fund Finance Limited [2018] JRC 194

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.

In the matter of a Representation by Computer Patent Annuities Holdings Limited and in the matter of Part 18A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2010]JRC021

Introduction

This case, heard by the Royal Court in Jersey, involved the approval of a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Article 125 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law"), together with the confirmation of a reduction of share capital.

Background

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.

Directors and officers of private companies are responsible for managing and running business. This responsibility is not limited to disciplinary liability (such as termination of employment), but also involves civil law liability (such as payment of damages) as well as administrative and even criminal liability. In some cases, the liability may be broad and contain no reasonable exceptions that might be available in other jurisdictions. This LawFlash summarizes the extent of liability that company directors and officers could face under Kazakhstan law.

We have recently prepared a study on court practice in Latvia in board liability cases. A short summary of our main findings appears below.