Introduction Ogier is counsel to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") in Jersey, Guernsey and BVI and provides netting and collateral opinions which are available to members from ISDA's website and updated on an annual basis. We are often asked to advise on the enforceability of close-out netting and setoff provisions under ISDA and other standard form agreements (including prime brokerage agreements) against counterparties incorporated or registered in the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey or Jersey. This involves an analysis of the extent to which local laws recognise the enforceability of such provisions in pre- and post-insolvency circumstances. The relevant legislation from each jurisdiction is summarised in general terms below. Upon request, we are able to provide opinions in respect of specific counterparties/types of counterparties and agreements.
British Virgin Islands
The Insolvency Act 2003 of the British Virgin Islands (the “IA”) provides that the netting of financial contracts is legally enforceable notwithstanding any provisions of the IA or the Insolvency Rules. Significantly, this means that where an insolvent entity that is party to a financial contract goes into liquidation, what might otherwise be a voidable transaction will be upheld if carried out pursuant to a netting agreement.
In order to be legally enforceable in this way, the netting agreement governing the financial contracts must be an agreement between two parties only. Therefore, it is critical that netting agreements are structured as bilateral contracts rather than multilateral contracts.
Financial contracts are contracts pursuant to which payment or delivery obligations that have a market or an exchange price are due to be performed at a certain time or within a certain period of time. Examples include currency or interest rate swap agreements, futures or options, and equity or credit derivatives.
As regards insolvency set-off, section 150(1) of the IA provides that where, before the liquidation of a company, there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between the company and a creditor claiming or intending to claim in the insolvency proceeding, the sums due from one party shall be set-off against the sums due from the other party and only the balance of the account, if any, may be claimed in the insolvency proceeding or is payable to the company, as the case may be.
Section 150(2) goes on to say that a creditor is not entitled to claim the benefit of a set-off if it had actual notice that the company was insolvent:
- at the time it gave credit to the company or received credit from the company; or
- at the time it acquired any claim against the company or any part of or interest in such a claim.
The Companies Law (2010 Revision), as amended (“Companies Law”) requires, in section 140(1), that on the winding up of a company, whether voluntary or compulsory, the property of the company be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu and subject thereto be distributed amongst the members according to their rights and interests in the company. However, this requirement is subject to section 140(2) which provides that that collection in and application of the property of the company is without prejudice to, and after taking into account and giving effect to, the rights of preferred and secured creditors and to any agreement between the company and any creditors, that the claims of such creditors shall be subordinated or otherwise deferred to the claims of any other creditors, and to any contractual rights of set off or netting of claims between the company and any other person or persons (including, without limitation, any bilateral or any multi-lateral set-off or netting arrangements between the company and any person or persons (and subject to any agreement between the company and any person or persons to waive or limit the same).
By virtue of section 15(4) of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2010 Revision), as amended, section 140 of the Companies Law applies to the winding up of an exempted limited partnership, voluntary or compulsory, as if references therein to a company were references to an exempted limited partnership, and limited partners are treated as if they were members of a company.
Accordingly, contractual bilateral and multi-lateral netting arrangements are effective on the winding up of a company or an exempted limited partnership in the Cayman Islands.
Preferential debts under the Companies Law are payable out of assets of a company or exempted limited partnership available to satisfy unsecured creditors after effect has been given to contractual netting arrangements under section 140(2).
However, any such netting arrangement will be subject to the provisions of the Companies Law relating to fraudulent preferences and dispositions at an undervalue, which apply on the winding up of both companies and exempted limited partnerships.
Guernsey does not have a separate modern netting law but it is considered that netting will be effective in Guernsey by operation of contract law and a positive opinion has been issued to ISDA and its members in relation to the ISDA Master Agreements.
In respect of set-off, The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law, 1979 provides that where there is for the time being in force an agreement (whether written or oral and whether express or implied) whereby, in respect of mutual dealings between them, any "debt" (see below) from one party is to be set off against any debt from the other party, the effect of that agreement is, unless the parties have expressly or by implication agreed to a different effect, that the only action which may be taken at any time in relation to what would otherwise be those mutual debts (whether by or at the instance of either party or any third party, and whether by way of enforcement, assignment, arrest, restraint or otherwise) is in respect of the balance (if any) then due after that setoff. This provision is subject to:
- in a case where the affairs of one party have been declared to be in a state of désastre at a meeting of his arresting creditors held before a Jurat as Commissioner of the Royal Court, then where the Jurat presiding at such a meeting has reasonable cause to believe that any such agreement was entered into by the party whose affairs have been declared to be in a state of désastre (the "debtor”) less than six months before the date of the meeting, the matter of the agreement shall be referred to the Royal Court and where the Royal Court is satisfied that the agreement was entered into with a view of giving to the other party a preference over the other creditors of the debtor, the Royal Court may make an order directing that the agreement shall be treated as being fraudulent and void as against the other creditors of the debtor; and
- in ascertaining the balance due as described above, if a contingent liability is to be taken into account the contingency is to be treated as having occurred, and if a future liability is to be taken into account it is to be treated as if presently payable.
For the purposes of the above provisions the The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law, 1979 provides that "debt" includes all debts and liabilities, present or future, certain or contingent, but does not include demands in the nature of unliquidated damages arising otherwise than by reason of contract or breach of trust.
In respect of set-off it is also to be noted that the provision of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, as amended, which provides that a company's assets in a winding up shall be realised and applied in satisfaction of the company's debts and liabilities pari passu is subject, amongst other matters, to any agreement between the company and any creditor thereof as to set-off.
On 5 April 2005, the States of Jersey passed the Bankruptcy (Netting, Contractual Subordination and Non-Petition Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2005 (the “Law”) which came into force on 12 August 2005. The Law ensures certainty to parties entering into agreements involving netting and set-off provisions.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Law, notwithstanding any enactment of rule of law to the contrary, any close-out netting provision or set-off provision in any agreement is enforceable in accordance with its terms. This will be the case regardless of the bankruptcy of a party to the agreement or of any other person or the lack of any mutuality of obligation between a party to the agreement and any other person. The Law provides that such provisions will be enforceable against any of the parties to the agreement, any guarantor or person providing security for a party to the agreement and any creditor of a party to the agreement.
The definition of an “agreement” is widely drafted to include any agreement between two or more parties, a series of inter-related agreements between two or more parties (whether pursuant to a master netting agreement or otherwise) or an agreement made between parties whether or not acting through multiple branches and whether operated through a clearing house system or otherwise.
The Law defines “netting” as the conversion, into one net claim or one net obligation, of all claims and obligations arising under the agreement to the effect that only a net claim can be demanded or a net obligation is owed.
A “close-out netting provision” means so much of an agreement as relates to:
- there ceasing to be any time allowed for the performance of an obligation specified in the agreement on the occurrence of an event specified in the agreement, including its automatic termination (such as provided in the ISDA Master Agreement);
- an obligation in an agreement to pay a specified amount but not immediately becoming an obligation to pay an amount determined pursuant to the agreement; or
- any combination of the above, whether through the operation of netting or otherwise.
A “set-off provision” means so much of any agreement, other than a close-out netting provision, as relates to the netting of amounts due from one party to the agreement to any other party to it.