IMMOVABLES

There are two principal insolvency procedures by which a lender can bring about the realisation of a property in Jersey, namely dégrèvement and désastre. 

A debtor who fears that his property is going to be taken for his creditors either by way of a dégrèvement or by way of a désastre can apply to the Royal Court for a "Remise de Biens".  A remise grants a debtor time to get his affairs in order and effect an orderly sale of all or some of his property thereby enabling him to retain that which he can afford.

This case considers the ability of the Court to ensure that similarly ranked creditors of a debtor are treated equally prior to the commencement of any insolvency procedure including a just and equitable winding up application.

Background

Mr Breifne O'Brien lives in Ireland. In 2008 and 2009 a number of creditors in that jurisdiction obtained judgments against him in the Irish High Court. The Irish Court injuncted Mr O'Brien from dealing with his assets within or without the jurisdiction below €20,000 million.

The facts:

An application had been made by Bank of Scotland Plc and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (the Applicants) for a letter of request to be sent by the Royal Court of Jersey to the High Court of England and Wales in respect of four Jersey companies which were ultimate beneficial owners of English real estate.  

As well as issuing claims in mistake and restitution in the BVI Commercial Court and the US State Supreme Court, the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“the Fund”) also petitioned for and, on 22 July 2010 obtained, Chapter 15 recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

The First Creditor Driven Schemes

The Commercial Court has very recently sanctioned four schemes of arrangement pursuant to section 179A of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004. These were the first two creditor-driven schemes to be proposed and sanctioned in the BVI. There has been one other scheme proposed and sanctioned in the BVI but this was a member’s scheme and was altogether more straightforward. Ogier BVI was instructed in relation to all four schemes.

The First Scheme

There has been a considerable amount of interest from clients recently on putting Jersey companies holding UK real property and other assets into English administration. Where a Jersey company and its creditors intend to rescue the company as a going concern, or English administration would achieve a better realisation for creditors than a désastre or a winding up, it may be advantageous to commence English administration.

In the current economic environment, there are a number of entities that are being restructured. Our current experience has been that such restructurings fall into two areas, namely a debt for equity swap or a release of “toxic” assets from a group structure in order to minimise exposure to this asset class.

Debt for Equity Swap

Introduction

If a fund is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities. An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the fund into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the fund’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries. Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.  

The credit crunch has put pressure on a wide range of structures and, as a result, lenders, borrowers and other counterparties are looking more closely at the impact of possible insolvency proceedings. As Jersey companies have often been used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies.  

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?

These are:-  

The Delaware bankruptcy court recently decided that a debtor could not assign a trademark license absent the consent of the licensor. The court concluded that federal trademark law and the terms of the license precluded assignment without consent. Because the debtor could not assign the license under any circumstances (consent was not forthcoming), the court held that cause existed to annul the automatic stay to permit the licensor to “move on with its trademark and its business.”