Table comparing the old Security Interests (Jersey) Law and the new Security Interests (Jersey) Law
This table has been prepared to provide a comparison of certain provisions of the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 2012 and the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 1983. It is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or other advice upon which you may act or rely and does not constitute an offer to provide such advice…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mourant Ozannes briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Mourant Ozannes
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mourant Ozannes
On 11 September the Guernsey Court of Appeal confirmed the test to be applied in determining whether a person should be added as a party to existing proceedings.
When a company is being wound up in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated, should an anti-suit injunction be issued to prevent a creditor or member from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction?