Winding up a Jersey trust company on just and equitable grounds

In the matter of Centurion Management Services Limited and Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2009]JRC227

Introduction

This judgment of the Royal Court in Jersey illustrates circumstances in which the court has been prepared to exercise its jurisdiction to order that a company be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable so to do.

Introduction

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 recent decision of the English High Court in the case of Fry v Sherry [2012] (In the matter of Ruscoe Ltd (In Liquidation)) serves as a timely reminder of the potential personal liabilities faced by directors should they breach their fiduciary duties. 

Summary of the facts

The liquidator of Onslow Ditching Ltd (ODL), sought a declaration against two directors (on three grounds), seeking damages/fines or a contribution of assets from each director for:

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.

The Facts

Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.

In this case, a liquidator had commenced proceedings against the former director of a company in relation to transactions which were alleged to have been made at an undervalue and/or with an intention to defraud creditors and/or which were preferential. It was also alleged that the former director had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties in procuring or permitting the transactions to take place.