Representation of Barclays Private Clients International and Barclays Bank PLC [2016] JRC 161 (12 September 2016)

The Court has jurisdiction to sanction the transfer of both deposit-taking and integral non-deposit-taking business under the Banking Law, and the scheme is fair, with no material objections and all statutory requirements satisfied.

Citation: [2016] JRC 161
Parties: First Representor: Barclays Private Clients International Limited; Second Representor: Barclays Bank PLC
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 12 September 2016
Procedural Posture: Banking Business Transfer Scheme / Final Sanction Hearing
Outcome: scheme sanctioned
Legal Topics: Business Transfer, Deposit Taking Business, Court Sanction, Intra Group Restructuring

Banking Law Corporate Law Business Transfer Deposit Taking Business Court Sanction Intra Group Restructuring

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Barclays Private Clients International Limited

First Representor

Barclays Bank PLC

Second Representor

Procedural Posture

Banking Business Transfer Scheme / Final Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to sanction the transfer of both deposit-taking and non-deposit-taking business under the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991
2 Whether the scheme is fair and does not adversely affect clients, creditors, or other interested parties

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

scheme sanctioned

Orders

Transfer of all relevant business, assets, and liabilities from the Jersey branch of BPCI to the Jersey branch of BBPLC to take effect on 1st October 2016
Notice to be given to certain guarantors/third party security providers