In earlier Z Trust decisions the Court had held that where a trust becomes ‘insolvent’ (in the sense that the assets held by the trustee are insufficient to meet the claims against those assets, applying the cash flow test), the trust should be administered under the supervision of the Court for the benefit of the creditors as a whole, rather than the beneficiaries.  Although in light of the Z III Trust’s financial position the Court had previously considered the imposition of an insolvency regime to wind up the trust, it had not done so at that stage due to the possibility of a restructuring of various of the Z Trusts, which was supported by the main creditors of the trust, with a view to seeking to restore the Z III Trust to solvency.  In the event, that restructuring did not prove possible and by the time the matter came back before the Court, all creditors were in agreement that the trust should be wound up.

The two principal issues which were considered by the Court were who should conduct the winding up exercise, and what kind of insolvency regime should be imposed.

  • Whilst it is clear from the approach taken by the Court that it may, in appropriate circumstances, consider appointing an insolvency practitioner to undertake the winding up exercise, in the Z III Trust case the Court was satisfied that the trustee was itself fully able to undertake the process and did not appear to be in a position of conflict which might otherwise impact on its ability to undertake the process. The judgment shows that the Court was clearly concerned that the appointment of an insolvency practitioner in this case would add an additional layer of cost which would further reduce the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors.  Given that the trustee was willing to undertake the exercise and had the necessary skills and resources to enable it to do so, the Court declined to appoint an independent insolvency practitioner to lead the winding up process.  It seems likely that if there had been some question as to the trustee’s ability properly to undertake and resource the winding up exercise, the Court would have considered either the appointment of a new or additional trustee to facilitate the winding up exercise, or the appointment of an independent insolvency practitioner to undertake the process in conjunction with the trustee.
  • The insolvency regime imposed by the Court borrows heavily from the procedure set out in the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 and the rules made under that law.  The regime sets out amongst other things the mechanics of advertising for and assessing creditor claims, dealing with the opposition to claims, authorising the trustee to take the steps necessary to collect in and realise the assets of the trust, making provision for the remuneration of the trustee during the process, and for the preparation of accounts and the distribution of trust assets. The regime also provides for a moratorium on claims by creditors and makes provision for either the trustee or creditors to bring matters before the Court for determination should that prove necessary.

Although the Court considered whether it might be possible to impose a less formulaic regime in the case of the Z III Trust in order to simplify the winding up process, the Court concluded that, in the interests of fairness to creditors, there was no stage in the process which could sensibly be omitted.  In other words, there was no shortcut which could be taken.

Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
30 Apr 2024

Secondary Pensions in Guernsey: Are you ready for it?

After several years of planning (and delays), The Secondary Pensions (Guernsey and Alderney) Law (La...

9 Apr 2024

The Global – your offshore corporate law questions answered: April 2024

The Global is a quarterly collection of corporate expert insights and analysis across Appleby's glob...

19 Mar 2024

Guernsey retains its EU adequacy – as expected

The post-Brexit regulatory landscape continues to throw up challenges and jurisdictional arbitrage, ...

18 Mar 2024

Parental Bereavement Leave: Jersey to implement further family leave rights

The UK introduced “Jack’s law” in 2020. Jersey is now following the UK’s example, and as of ...

10 Jan 2024

The Global – your offshore corporate law questions answered

The Global is Appleby’s quarterly collection of expert insights and analysis on the latest develop...

20 Mar 2023

Trusts: Comparison between the Crown Dependencies

Our Private Client and Trusts specialists in Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey outline some of the ke...

19 Jan 2023

The Edinburgh Reforms: An Offshore Perspective

On 9 December 2022, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of reforms to the UK fina...

27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

23 Feb 2022

Anonymisation of decisions: an invitation to consider this more but the unscrupulous need not apply!

The adage that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” derives from a ...

25 Nov 2021

Regulatory Approach to ESG across the Crown Dependencies

New requirements may require investment products to display a label reflecting their sustainability ...