• Login
  • Register
  • PRO
    • PRO Compliance plan
    • PRO Compliance
    • PRO subscription plans
    • Curated articles
    • In-depth
    • Market intelligence
    • Practice guides
    • PRO Reports New
    • Lexology GTDT
    • Ask Lexy
  • PRO
  • Latest
  • GTDT
  • Research
  • Learn
  • Experts
  • Store
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Influencers
  • About
  • Explore
  • Legal Research
  • Primary SourcesBeta
  • PRO Compliance

Introducing PRO Compliance
The essential resource for in-house professionals

  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides
Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics New
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons Beta
  • Ideation

CLIENT INTELLIGENCE

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates New
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre New

COMPETITOR INTELLIGENCE

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates New

Lexology PRO

Power up your legal research with modern workflow tools, AI conceptual search and premium content sets that leverage Lexology's archive of 900,000+ articles contributed by the world's leading law firms. 

PRO Compliance plan
PRO subscription plans

Premium content

  • Curated articles
  • In-depth
  • Market intelligence
  • Practice guides
  • PRO Reports New

Analysis tools

  • Lexology GTDT
  • Ask Lexy
Explore all PRO content PRO Compliance
  • Find experts
  • About
  • Firms
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Development Securities: what directors of Jersey companies should continue to do

Carey Olsen

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

Jersey, United Kingdom January 31 2020

Don’t worry, this isn’t another briefing that anxiously sets out new standards of corporate governance required as a consequence of the recent Development Securities judgments. On the contrary, our view is that those English judgments tell us little about corporate governance of Jersey companies that was not already known, and in fact support our long-held view that what some may see as corporate governance ‘best practice’ should instead be considered as the ‘only practice’.

Key points

The key points that come out of the Development Securities judgments in a corporate governance context are as follows:

  • A court may examine pre-incorporation planning in determining whether a company’s board was operating on an ongoing basis or to undertake another’s plan: future board members should be sufficiently involved.
  • The court may review board minutes and handwritten notes of board minutes: avoid conflicting records and prepare long form draft minutes in advance.
  • The court may be critical of material matters discussed in board meetings not being recorded in board minutes, and of directors not being sent relevant emails or spending sufficient time considering matters: again, prepare long form draft minutes in advance and, where meetings must be held at short notice, company advisers can attend the meeting to brief directors.
  • It could be argued before the court that directors with numerous directorships were not abreast of and focused on relevant transactions.
  • Shareholder resolutions authorising directors’ actions may be the subject of lengthy arguments and comprehensive analysis: they can be authorisations but not instructions.
  • Provided a Jersey company’s directors exercise proper judgment, its central management and control does not vest in its sole parent even where it carries out the purpose for which it was set up in accordance with the intentions, desires and even instructions of the parent.
  • Directors of a Jersey company that is a wholly-owned special purpose vehicle and which is to enter into a transaction that does not prejudice its creditors act in the best interests of the company where they act in the best interests of the company’s sole shareholder.

Further details follow.

What are the Development Securities judgments?

The Development Securities judgments are three judgments of the UK Tax Tribunal, a first instance judgment and two appeals, which looked at whether three Jersey companies (the “Jcos”) were tax resident in the UK at the time they entered into certain transactions. It is the two appeal judgments that are of most interest in a corporate governance context, being:

  • Development Securities v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 0565 (TC) (the “First Appeal”), rejecting the taxpayer’s appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision of HMRC in respect of various CGT capital loss relief provisions; and
  • Development Securities v HMRC [2019] UKUT 169 (TCC) (the “Second Appeal”), a further appeal, to the Upper Tribunal, which overturned that earlier decision but did not undermine the importance of the corporate governance points raised in the First Appeal.

Summary of background facts

A summary of background facts is as follows:

  • The three Jcos were incorporated as part of a scheme to crystallise latent capital losses in UK real estate. Each had a board consisting of two Jersey professional directors and one client UK director. Board meetings were held in Jersey. The Jcos were intended to be Jersey tax resident at the relevant time (and on the Second Appeal this was found to be the case).
  • Under the scheme, the Jcos acquired assets at an undervalue under call option agreements while Jersey tax resident and then became UK tax resident before disposing of the assets. This would mean that for UK tax purposes the Jcos would suffer a loss as between the acquisition price (base cost plus indexation) and the sale price (market value).
  • The directors were not comfortable that entry into the transactions forming part of the scheme was in the best interests of the Jcos. As a consequence, the shareholders of each Jco passed resolutions (together the “Shareholder Resolutions”) confirming that entry into the call option agreements was in the best interests of the relevant Jco and authorising the directors to enter into, execute and deliver those agreements, under a specific provision of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (“CJL”). That provision provides for a ‘whitewash’ process by which no act or omission of a director is treated as a breach of statutory duty, including the duty to act “…with a view to the best interests of the company”, if all the members of the company authorise or ratify the act or omission and after the act or omission the company will be cash-flow solvent.
  • One of the professional directors estimated that he was a director of at least 40 to 50 client companies of various types and would attend about 25 to 30 board meetings each month.

You can download the complete briefing through the download button on the right hand side.

Please note that this briefing is intended to provide a very general overview of the matters to which it relates. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied on as such. © Carey Olsen 2020

Carey Olsen - James Willmott
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Jersey
  • United Kingdom
  • Company & Commercial
  • Litigation
  • Tax
  • Carey Olsen

Tagged with

  • Corporate governance
  • Board of directors

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Brexit: the impact of the end of the Transition Period in Guernsey and Jersey *
  2. Trusts and Private Wealth 2021 - Carey Olsen Jersey *
  3. Private Client Guide - Jersey (Legal 500) *
  4. Assessing lender risk in fund finance markets *
  5. Jersey's new register of beneficial owners and significant persons *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology
loading...

Related research hubs

  • Corporate governance
  • Jersey
  • United Kingdom
  • Litigation
  • Company & Commercial
Dr Jürgen Fegbeutel
Legal Services Director
BMW (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
What our clients say

"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access to as a company lawyer. It definitely serves as a trigger for me to investigate such changes in the legal landscape in South Africa as they may affect my work and that of my employer. I believe that receiving Lexology provides me with a competitive advantage."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Law Business Research

© Copyright 2006 - 2021 Law Business Research