The Royal Court in Jersey has a varied and challenging workload. The cases that have come before it this quarter certainly live up to that description. Here we discuss just a handful of cases that the Royal Court has determined, that, whilst in some respects are unremarkable, in other respects serve to illustrate the breadth of the experience that the Royal Court judiciary possesses.
Representation of Private Equity Fund Finance Limited [2018] JRC 194
In an important judgment published last week, the Royal Court of Jersey has provided guidance to trustees and other holders of fiduciary powers in relation to the exercise of powers when a trust is considered to be “insolvent”. Counsel in the case was unable to find any relevant authority on this subject in any other trusts jurisdiction, so this may well be one of the first cases to deal with this issue.
In a recent unreported decision, ENRC NV v. Zamin Ferrous Limited (2015) JRC 217, the Jersey Royal Court demonstrated its consent to ensuring that judgment creditors can enforce their judgments worldwide. In this case, the judgment creditor applied for an ex-parte order to freeze assets and to compel the judgment debtor to answer questions about its assets and assets held by its subsidiaries. The answers revealed two agreements had been entered into pursuant to which certain assets held by subsidiaries had been transferred to third parties.
Key Points
- COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales
- Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved
The Facts
In a recent trilogy of decisions concerning the high-profile insolvency of Jersey company Orb arl and its sole shareholder Gail Cochrane, the Royal Court of Jersey provided a clear endorsement of the capability of the Jersey insolvency regime to deal with complex cross-border insolvency matters. This update considers some of the salient points from the saga so far.
The three Royal Court decisions are as follows:
In this case, the firm was instructed by the English liquidators of Arck LLP (in liquidation) to assist in the recovery of assets misappropriated from a large number of British investors and channelled through Jersey corporate and trust structures as part of a fraudulent collective investment scheme.
English Liquidators of a fraudulent investment company were able to navigate a complex web of defunct companies and trusts to realise assets in a Jersey company.
The partners of Arck LLP (in Liquidation), registered in England ("Arck"), an investment firm, were convicted of fraud and forgery. Richard Clay, thought to be the driving force of the scandal, is now serving a 10 years 10 months prison sentence and his deputy Kathryn Clark received a two year suspended sentence.
Introduction
There are two principal regimes for corporate insolvency in Jersey: désastre and winding-up. This Briefing seeks to highlight the major features of each and some of the differences between the two.
Désastre
The law of désastre arose out of the common law of Jersey, although since 1991 the common law has only applied to the extent that express provision is not made in the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the "Désastre Law").
Who may commence the process?
Background
The concept of cell companies was first introduced to Jersey in February 2006. In addition to the widely recognised structure of a protected cell company, Jersey also introduced a completely new concept - the incorporated cell company.
The key issue which differentiates both types of cell company from traditional (non-cellular) companies is that they provide a flexible corporate vehicle within which assets and liabilities can be ring-fenced, or segregated, so as only to be available to the creditors and shareholders of each particular cell.