Jersey Unreported Judgments

Letter of Request

[2021]JRC151

Royal Court

(Samedi)

26 May 2021

IN THE MATTER OF BETINDEX LIMITED (IN ADMINISTRATION)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF RICHARD TOONE, ADRIAN HYDE AND ADRIAN RABET AS JOINT ADMINISTRATORS OF BETINDEX LIMITED (IN ADMINISTRATION)

Advocate R. D. J. Holden for the Representors.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        The Royal Court invited the High Court of England and Wales to consider making an administration order in respect of the Jersey company, BetIndex Limited (the "Company") for the reasons set out in the judgment of 18^th March 2021 BetIndex Limited [2021] JRC 077.  A Letter of Request was issued on that day.

2.        The High Court received that Letter of Request and on 26^th March 2021 made various orders and issued a Letter of Request to this Court asking the Court to grant all appropriate assistance to the English High Court pursuant to Article 49 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) Jersey Law 1990 ("the Désastre Law") by, inter alia, recognising the appointment of the Joint Administrators, including a moratorium on proceedings and enforcement against the Company, and permitting the Joint Administrators to exercise all their powers under the Insolvency Act 1986.

3.        The Law of Jersey does not recognise a process analogous to administration, which was one of the reasons for the Royal Court's original Letter of Request in this case.  However, recognition of appointments of administrators appointed by the United Kingdom courts has become, in the exercise of the Royal Court's discretion, relatively routine.

4.        The power to recognise such an appointment is conferred upon the Royal Court by Article 49 of the Désastre Law:

"49.   Assistance for other courts in insolvency matters

(1) The court may, to the extent it thinks fit, assist the courts of a relevant country or territory in all matters relating to the insolvency of a person, and when doing so may have regard to the extent it considers appropriate to the provisions for the time being of any model law on cross border insolvency prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a request from a court of a relevant country or territory for assistance shall be sufficient authority for the court to exercise, in relation to the matters to which the request relates, any jurisdiction which it or the requesting court could exercise in relation to these matters if they otherwise fell within its jurisdiction.

(3) In exercising its discretion for the purposes of this Article the court shall have regard in particular to the rules of private international law.

(4) In this Article "relevant country or territory" means a country or territory prescribed by the Minister."

5.        England is a 'relevant country or territory' as designated by Article 6 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) Jersey Order 2006.  Having been appointed as administrators of the Company, the Joint Administrators are obliged, pursuant to provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, to perform their functions with a view to fulfilling at least one of the purposes of administration which are:

(i)      rescuing the Company as a going concern;

(ii)     achieving a better result for the Company's creditors as a whole that would be likely if the Company were wound up without first being in administration; or

(iii)    realising property in order to make a distribution to one or more of the Company's secure or preferential creditors.

6.        Given that the Letter of Request from this Court specifically identified the Joint Administrators as proposed joint administrators of the Company and the High Court, in so appointing them, acceded to the Royal Court's request, it is appropriate for the Court to today recognise the appointment of the Joint Administrators.

7.        As to the request for a recognition of the moratorium on proceedings and enforcement against the Company and its assets, the moratorium granted by the English High Court is very wide in scope and has the effect of granting the Joint Administrators breathing room to take stock of the Company's situation, gather in the assets and make distributions fairly.  It has the effect of preventing a race between creditors to enforce claims against the Company.  The moratorium is grounded in the statutory provisions pursuant to paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. 

8.        These provisions are similar in effect to the moratorium provisions that take effect in Jersey under insolvency processes pursuant to both the Article 159 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 and the Article 10 Désastre Law of which provides a moratorium on proceedings against any person in respect of whom a declaration has been made which, although not in the same wording as the moratorium process under the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of administration, is of expansive ambit:

"10. Prohibition on pursuing alternative remedies, etc. after declaration

(1) With effect from the date of the declaration a creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in respect of a debt provable in the "désastre" shall not -

(a) have any other remedy against the property or person of the debtor in respect of the debt;

(b) commence any action or legal proceedings to recover the debt; or

(c) except with the consent of the Viscount or by order of the court, continue any action or legal proceedings to recover the debt."

9.        In Re Arcadia Group [2021] JRC 047, the Court made a similar order holding that it had power to do so both pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Désastre Law and under its inherent jurisdiction.

10.      Accordingly, I make a similar order today, noting that aggrieved creditors may still apply either to the Joint Administrators or to the Court for leave to enforce or otherwise bring proceedings against the Company. 

11.      As to the granting to the Joint Administrators of the powers enjoyed by administrators pursuant to the Insolvency Act, the Court examined the same and agreed with the Joint Administrators that none of the powers sought were exorbitant or offensive as a matter of Jersey law, noting that in the exercise of their powers they are in any event under the supervision of the English High Court as well as this Court.  Accordingly, the relief sought in the prayer to the Representation was granted, including providing for liberty to apply to any person affected by the orders made.

12.      Finally, I note that the sum of £4,504,307 was received by the Viscount on 10^th May 2021 in accordance with the order made on 18^th March 2021 referred to at paragraph 15 of the judgment given on that day.

Authorities

BetIndex Limited [2021] JRC 077. 

Bankruptcy (Désastre) Jersey Law 1990. 

Bankruptcy (Désastre) Jersey Order 2006

Companies (Jersey) Law 1991

Re Arcadia Group [2021] JRC 047