The Royal Court (Samedi) gave judgment earlier this week in Representation of Standard Chartered (Jersey) Limited [2013] JRC 172, an important decision concerning the scope of Article 48D of the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991. Article 48D, and the accompanying Schedule to which it refers, were inserted into the 1991 Law by the Banking Business (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 2008 and establish a framework for the court to sanction the transfer in whole or in part of a deposit-taking business carried on, in or from Jersey by a registered person. The court held that Article 48D was wide enough to cover the transfer of an investment management business as well as a deposit-taking business. This was permissible, Commissioner Clyde-Smith held, where the non-deposit taking activities were integral to the business to be transferred and where they had not been artificially attached to the deposit-taking activities. He added that the transfer of non-depositing activities within a proposed scheme could also be achieved be under Paragraph 9(e) of the Schedule which enables the court to make orders in respect of incidental, consequential and supplementary matters that are, in its opinion, necessary for the full and effective carrying out of the scheme.
Friday, 6 September 2013
Jersey: The scope of Article 48D of the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991
The Royal Court (Samedi) gave judgment earlier this week in Representation of Standard Chartered (Jersey) Limited [2013] JRC 172, an important decision concerning the scope of Article 48D of the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991. Article 48D, and the accompanying Schedule to which it refers, were inserted into the 1991 Law by the Banking Business (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 2008 and establish a framework for the court to sanction the transfer in whole or in part of a deposit-taking business carried on, in or from Jersey by a registered person. The court held that Article 48D was wide enough to cover the transfer of an investment management business as well as a deposit-taking business. This was permissible, Commissioner Clyde-Smith held, where the non-deposit taking activities were integral to the business to be transferred and where they had not been artificially attached to the deposit-taking activities. He added that the transfer of non-depositing activities within a proposed scheme could also be achieved be under Paragraph 9(e) of the Schedule which enables the court to make orders in respect of incidental, consequential and supplementary matters that are, in its opinion, necessary for the full and effective carrying out of the scheme.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment