The Pauline Action is a legal mechanism that allows creditors to apply to the Royal Court of Jersey to set aside transactions undertaken by a debtor to defraud or otherwise prejudice them.
Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi and Others [2024] JRC 256 is the most recent case from the Royal Court to affirm that the Pauline Action, which has its origins in Roman law, remains an effective debt recovery tool for creditors in Jersey.
Purpose of the Pauline Action
Occasionally an invoice slips through the net and does not get paid, or payment is delayed due to issues with the goods or services being provided.
Where the debt is for £750 or more, an impatient creditor may serve a statutory demand or a winding up petition if it considers there to be no reason for the delay.
If this happens, deal with the situation immediately as the consequences of failing to do so can be very damaging to the company's reputation and finances; even if it is not ultimately wound up.
In a recent judgment (Durose & Ors v Tagco BV & Ors [2022] EWHC 3000 (Ch)), the Court was asked to decide whether the actions of a private equity investor demonstrated "unfair prejudice". In this insight we cover what steps companies should take in light of the Court's ruling.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
