Representation of HWA 555 Owners, LLC re Redox PLC S.A. and Anor [2022] JRC 181 (30 August 2022)

Representation of HWA 555 Owners, LLC re Redox PLC S.A. and Anor [2022] JRC 181 (30 August 2022)

HWA has standing to apply for a creditors' winding up as it holds a liquidated claim against Redox under the Californian Costs Order exceeding the statutory minimum. However, the Court declines to order a winding up in Jersey, exercising its discretion in favour of maintaining the primacy of the Luxembourg bankruptcy proceedings, which are well advanced, supervised, and supported by the majority of creditors. No evidence justifies parallel proceedings at this time, especially given HWA's refusal to engage with the Luxembourg process and lack of support from other creditors.

Citation
[2022] JRC 181
Parties
Applicant: HWA; First Respondent: Redox; Judge Commissioner (luxembourg): Mrs Anick Wolff; Bankruptcy Trustee: Second Respondent (Luxembourg Bankruptcy Trustee)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Creditors' Winding Up Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Creditors' Winding Up, Parallel Insolvency Proceedings, Liquidated Claims, Jurisdiction, Dual Incorporation, Réhabilitation Process
Insolvency Company Law Private International Law Creditors' Winding Up Parallel Insolvency Proceedings Liquidated Claims Jurisdiction Dual Incorporation +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HWA

Applicant

Redox

First Respondent

Mrs Anick Wolff

Judge Commissioner (luxembourg)

Second Respondent (Luxembourg Bankruptcy Trustee)

Bankruptcy Trustee

Procedural Posture

Creditors' Winding Up Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does HWA have standing to apply for a creditors' winding up of Redox under Article 157A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991?
  2. 2 Should the Jersey court order a parallel winding up given ongoing Luxembourg bankruptcy proceedings?
  3. 3 Is the claim by HWA a liquidated sum not subject to genuine dispute?

Ratio Decidendi

HWA has standing to apply for a creditors' winding up as it holds a liquidated claim against Redox under the Californian Costs Order exceeding the statutory minimum. However, the Court declines to order a winding up in Jersey, exercising its discretion in favour of maintaining the primacy of the Luxembourg bankruptcy proceedings, which are well advanced, supervised, and supported by the majority of creditors. No evidence justifies parallel proceedings at this time, especially given HWA's refusal to engage with the Luxembourg process and lack of support from other creditors.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No winding up order made in Jersey
  • HWA has standing as a creditor under Article 157A