- The extent of the disclosure obligation under a worldwide freezing order (PSJC Commercial Bank v Kolomoisky)
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What was the background to the judgment?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court recently considered the extent of defendants’ disclosure obligation under a worldwide freezing order (the WFO). The claimant bank argued that the defendants had failed to comply with that obligation as they had provided inadequate information regarding their assets to the bank. As such, the bank applied to the court seeking a further ancillary order that the defendants provide a list of specific details regarding their assets. The key issue for determination was whether the disclosure sought by the bank went beyond what was necessary under the terms of the WFO. The bank argued that the eight different categories of additional information which they sought were necessary to give effect to the WFO and that they all fell within the term ‘value, location and details’ of the relevant assets included within the disclosure paragraph of the WFO. The defendants argued the information sought went beyond what was necessary.
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