Jersey: Corporate/Commercial Law

The UK Supreme Court's decision in Saxon Woods v Costa establishes that directors cannot justify covert, disloyal conduct by claiming they sincerely believed they were acting in the company's best interests. This analysis examines how the ruling clarifies section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 and explores its implications for directors of Jersey companies, where article 74(1)(a) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 takes a different structural approach to the same fundamental duty.

In a market shaped by higher financing costs and evolving capital partnerships, real estate sponsors are increasingly focused on structuring flexibility throughout the investment lifecycle. Against this backdrop, Jersey remains a well-established platform for international real estate investment. Its corporate and regulatory framework, including the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 and the Jersey Private Fund (JPF) regime, combines regulatory credibility with practical structuring flexibility.

Jersey is a popular place to establish companies because the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the Law) is modern, flexible and modelled on English companies legislation. This guide looks at the key things you need to know about the payment of distributions by a Jersey company (a company that is not an open ended investment company).