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
Do you have any Cayman Islands entities that you are considering terminating prior to year-end?
In this briefing, Ogier Global's Corinne Cellier, associate director and head of our solvent liquidations team, reminds us of the options and timing for the termination of Cayman Islands entities. Our aim is to make the process as straightforward and clear as possible for our clients, navigating the applicable deadlines and regulatory considerations.
In many of the recent insolvencies of digital asset companies, liquidators have been appointed over companies in which digital assets have been fraudulently transferred from wallets controlled by an insolvent company into other unidentified wallets in foreign jurisdictions.
The anonymity of cryptoassets causes serious difficulties for insolvency practitioners in identifying the third parties who received funds and the location of the digital wallets.
Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。
この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法（Companies Act）第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。
監督命令に適用される審査基準
監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。
会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。
昨今、ケイマン諸島の判決で、債権者との間のスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントを取り扱ったRe In the Matter of E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Limited [1]において、セガル裁判官が米国、英国、ヨーロッパにおける制裁措置がスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントにどのような潜在的な法的影響をもたらすか、また、当該スキームが国際的にどのような法的効果を有するのかを明確にする判断を示しました。
現在のマクロ経済環境およびグローバル市場の激動状況に照らせば、誠実な企業再建実施後も継続した企業の事業活動が可能となるような方策を模索することにつき、柔軟で積極的な役割を果たす意思が裁判所にあることを確認したものです。
なお、ケイマン諸島が企業再建における最先端の法域であることは、裁判官による会社債権者との調整案策定のために会社を代理するリストラクチャリング・オフィサーの選任にかかる第一号事例からも示されています。この事例については「ケイマン諸島における新たな企業再建の幕開け」をご参照ください。
背景およびスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントの提案
In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.
Background
Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case