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
We have recently prepared a study on court practice in Latvia in board liability cases. A short summary of our main findings appears below.
Hellas case: The Luxembourg Commercial Court rejects the English liquidators’ one billion EUR claim
In a well motivated judgment rendered on 23 December 2015, the Luxembourg Commercial Court has ruled in favor of the former private equity owners of Hellas Group, i.e.ultimately Apax Partners and TPG Capital, and dismissed the action of the English liquidators of Hellas Telecommunications II SCA (Hellas II) for reimbursement or damages of 973 million EUR.
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.
Introduction
Luxembourg recently adopted a number of legislative reforms aimed at modernising the rules applicable to commercial companies. In relation to the restructuring and insolvency of Luxembourg-based entities, Parliament is discussing the long-awaited Bill 6539 (the so-called 'Insolvency Bill').
In the meantime, a number of reforms which could affect the restructuring and insolvency of commercial companies have been adopted, including:
Earlier this year, both the lower and upper houses of Malaysia’s parliament, passed the Companies Bill 2015 (“theBill”) which will harmonise Malaysia's insolvency laws and bring them more in line with modern international standards. Once the Bill comes into effect (it is currently awaiting Royal Assent), it will replace Malaysia’s existing Companies Act 1965.
On January 10, 2014, the Federal Executive Branch of México published in the Official Gazette the legal amendments to México’s Commercial Bankruptcy Law (Ley de Concursos Mercantiles, or LCM), effecting the most comprehensive set of changes to the LCM since its enactment over 13 years ago, and establishing new rules for bankruptcy proceedings in México with the intent to improve the position of creditors dealing with the insolvency of local companies.
The Mexican insolvency and bankruptcy law (“Ley de Concursos Mercantiles” or “LCM“) that came into effect on May 12, 2000, abrogated the Mexican Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Law. One of the stated purposes of the LCM was to mitigate the impact that globalization and the free market had on Mexican corporations, especially after ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The LCM, therefore, seeks to preserve businesses facing a general default on the payment of their obligations and thereby preserve jobs in Mexico.
Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden: a shareholder loan does not in itself have a subordinated character. If subordination has not been specifically agreed, other creditors may file a claim on the basis of tort law or on the principles of reasonableness and fairness in order to achieve a similar result, in other words as if the shareholder loan had been subordinated.