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].
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 liquidity crisis has increased the need for creative procedures to avoid sudden death bankruptcy in order to salvage existing value.
A Jersey company or a company incorporated elsewhere but administered in Jersey may become involved in insolvency procedures under Jersey law or the law of a jurisdiction outside Jersey.
Introduction
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 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:-
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.