Ruling Three: Once the debtor has been placed under interdiction, no claims may be pursued against him until the ban is lifted. Whoever sells something to him or extends him a loan during this period must wait until the interdiction is removed before seeking repayment.

Ruling Four: The judge must sell the debtor’s assets and distribute the proceeds among his creditors in proportion to the debts that are presently due, for this is the very purpose of the interdiction, and delaying it would be a form of procrastination and injustice toward them. The judge, however, leaves the insolvent whatever he requires for housing, maintenance, and similar necessities.

Deferred debts do not fall due by reason of the debtor’s insolvency and therefore do not compete with debts that have already matured. The deferment is a right belonging to the insolvent and, like his other rights, cannot be revoked; such debts remain in his liability. After the debtor’s property has been divided among those holding immediate claims, if those claims are fully satisfied and nothing of them remains, the interdiction lapses automatically, without a new judicial ruling, because its cause has disappeared. If, however, any portion of the current debts remains unpaid, the interdiction will not be lifted except by a judge’s order, for the one who imposed the ban is the one who must revoke it.

The second category of interdiction:
This is the interdiction imposed for a person’s own benefit, to safeguard his wealth and preserve it for him. This religion is a religion of mercy: it urges every course that brings benefit and warns against every course that brings harm. Among its manifestations is that it grants anyone who is competent to manage property and engage in commerce the freedom to do so, provided he remains within the bounds of lawful earning.