- No basis for freezing order to continue post-recognition (Protasov v Derev)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that, although the court might have jurisdiction to continue a freezing order after a Model Law recognition application had succeeded, there was no basis on which to do so in this case. In reaching that conclusion, the court reinforced the orthodoxy of the statutory insolvency scheme, which provides office-holders with sufficient machinery so as to obviate the need for reliance on the court’s freezing injunction jurisdiction as against bankrupts. That is to be contrasted with the power of office-holders to ‘reach out’ from the insolvency and apply for freezing and proprietary injunctions against, for example, recipients of property from the estate. Practitioners should also take note of the distinction between applications for freezing and proprietary injunctions, which are by their nature temporary, with recognition orders, which are essentially ‘final’. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister, at Guildhall Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial