Introduction

The Statutory Position:

The provisions governing the recognition of a foreign (including a UK) insolvency office holder under Jersey law are found in Article 49 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the 'Law') and Article 6 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Order 2006 (the 'Order').

In the matter of the Representation of Gregory Branch and Lee Manning, Joint Liquidators of AAA Holdings Limited (in liquidation) [2009]JRC110

This judgment is of interest as being the first occasion on which the Royal Court in Jersey was asked to sanction the compromise of a claim under Article 170 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law").

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.

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

A winding up on 'just and equitable' grounds is a fast evolving remedy which allows a company to avoid a désastre. As in England and certain other jurisdictions, it is a flexible tool, with certain generally accepted grounds for the court exercising its discretion to grant the remedy, such as the need for an investigation into the affairs of the company concerned. Unlike désastre, it is not dependent on the cash flow insolvency of the company concerned and the Royal Court has a broad discretion to tailor the powers it may grant a liquidator to the needs of the situation.

The rule that creditors generally cannot continue to sue a company once a winding up order has been made has been applied to companies being wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds. This is not explicit in the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 but has been ordered by the Court to give efficacy to the process. One of the features of winding up is that it is generally regarded as better to marshall claims against the company through a liquidator-operated adjudication procedure.

There is currently no administration process in Jersey. However, an interesting area of development is the gradual trend towards seeking English administration for Jersey incorporated companies with assets or businesses in England. This offers a possible alternative for a company to winding up on just and equitable grounds where it is desirable to keep the company as a going concern and certain pre-requisites, as a matter of English law, are met (primarily that administration offers a chance of a better realisation for creditors than winding up).

If a company in liquidation has a claim against another entity, can the liquidator compromise the claim on his own or must he do so with reference to the creditors to whom the settlement proceeds will make their way? That was answered with the Royal Court saying that creditors should ordinarily be given the opportunity to appear at the hearing at which the compromise is sanctioned [link to 2009 JRC 110].

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:-