It has been common practice in recent years for the English Courts to make administration orders in respect of Jersey companies with English situs assets, based upon letters of request from the Royal Court of Jersey issued pursuant to section 426 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. However, a recent case in the English High Court has challenged the basis upon which these administration orders have historically been made.
Background
A Jersey company or one of its creditors may wish the company to be placed into administration in England under Schedule B1 of the UK's Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act").
In the matter of the representation of Anglo Irish Asset Finance [2010] JRC087
This is the latest decision of the Royal Court in relation to an application by a UK creditor (a bank) for a letter of request to be issued to the English High Court requesting that an administration order be made in respect of a Jersey company.
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.
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:-
In the context of joint liquidators’ applications for documents “belonging to” the company or “relating to” its affairs (under sections 324 and 326 of the Insolvency Act 1986), the High Court confirmed that English law applied to determine whether documents could be withheld by the Luxembourg lawyers who were respondents to the application.
In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.
Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.
In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.