The UK government attempted to ease the financial strain of the COVID-19 pandemic with, among other things, rent "holidays" for tenants and the opportunities for loans for certain businesses. While some businesses were able to avail themselves of such measures, not all were eligible or able to utilise such schemes. It seems that commercial landlords have been one of the sectors that have been hit hard, especially with some commercial tenants not surviving the downturn.

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 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 entities are often used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies, trusts and limited partnerships.

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?

These are:

In the light of immense pressure on the liquidity of many companies and obligations to file for insolvency in case of illiquidity or overindebtedness, the Germany government will suspend this obligation until 30 September 2020. The suspension will apply if the insolvency is caused by the coronavirus pandemic and if there are sufficient prospects that the company can be turned around.

The Court of Appeal overturns the High Court decision concerning an ATE insurance policy lacking anti-avoidance provisions as adequate security for costs.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

The recent further dip in oil price has placed even more pressure on the costs paid by Operators to Contractors, and also how much reliance Contractors can place on an Operator's promise to pay.

The case of Hunt (as Liquidator of System Building Services Group Ltd) v Michie & Ors [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch) examines whether directors’ duties continue after the company has become insolvent and confirms that they do, bringing welcome clarity to the point. As such, Insurers will need to review their policies to make clear if they wish to cover this risk.

In Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited [2017] UKSC 77 the Supreme Court reminded us that the measure of damages is that which is required to restore the claimant as nearly as possible to the position that he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong.

The true effects of the events of the last few days have yet to be seen. With the mainstream political parties acting like participants in a ‘Compose a Greek Tragedy’ competition, a government unlikely to exercise any meaningful executive functions until autumn (at least), the currency and financial markets in turmoil and the future uncertain on a range of factors, it is tempting to succumb to a condition of inaction whilst waiting to see how the cards fall.

Directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.

With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, this issue is especially pertinent to that sector.