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 executor of the estate of the deceased who had been the principal mover behind the Belgravia Group, was faced with two novel circumstances. First, the estate appeared totally insolvent but yet the executor had no set of rules to deal with creditors (the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990) does not apply to the property of a deceased). The Royal Court considered the matter and ordered a process which mirrored the rules applying to a désastre.

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.

Introduction

On 13 November 2015, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Introduction of Amendments and Supplements to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Issues of Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy” (the “Law”) was signed and its provisions were put into effect on 29 November 2015.

Article 295 of the Jordanian Commerce Law 1966 allows a merchant on the verge of bankruptcy to avoid bankruptcy and gain protection from creditors executing judgments against the merchant by initiating a court-sponsored settlement process with the creditors (‘preventive composition’).

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