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 current position

In one of a number of cases in which Bedell Cristin has acted for English trustees in bankruptcy who have sought recognition in Jersey for the purposes of seeking documents from Jersey trustees in order to trace assets of the bankrupt, the court was asked to recognise the trustee, even though the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy was a foreign revenue (HMRC), whose claim comprised 99.8% of all claims against the bankrupt. There is a long established rule in England, Jersey and elsewhere which prevents enforcement of foreign revenue claims.

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:-  

Bisson -v- Barker, P. Bish, H. Bish and Viscount 2008 JLR N[46]

This decision addresses the court's powers to order the winding up of a company on just and equitable grounds pursuant to Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.
The company in question (the "Company") had operated two businesses in the Island. Relations between certain of the shareholders, involved in the management of the two businesses, broke down, such that it became impossible for them to continue to work together.

The Viscount

The current year has brought new amendments to the Commercial Law. These mainly refer to the company liquidation procedure. Additionally, the Commercial Law now contains a new procedure for suspending operations of a commercial entity. The amendments also set limits on a natural person doing business or occupying certain positions following decisions during criminal proceedings or proceedings involving administrative violations.

Key changes proposed in the new Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law affect involuntary petitions for bankruptcy, invalidations, trustees' avoidance powers, debtors' dissolution, and priority of claims.

On 2 March 2016, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal has denied an appeal filed by Dr. Adil Elias, Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt and a handful of other creditors of BCCI against a judgment previously rendered by the Luxembourg Commercial Court, which had refused to reopen the liquidation proceedings of Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (“BCCI S.A.”) and BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A. (“BCCI Holdings”).

Under the Act of August 10 2016 modernising the Company Law 1915 (which entered into force on August 23 2016) Luxembourg law now officially recognises that companies can be wound up by means of a simplified procedure. This is an unquestionably useful tool which will further enhance Luxembourg's business-friendly reputation.