International Asset Tracing and Investigation

For "any kind of foreign litigation or arbitration ... that involves transactions in U.S. dollars, there's at least a possibility that there's going to be information in the U.S. and that tends to be attractive," said Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC partner A. Katherine Toomey.

Cristián Francos been recognized as a Global Leader in Who’s Who Legal: Investigations 2021.  Who’s Who Legal is one of the world’s leading directories of legal practitioners.

Two Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss professionals have been recognized as Global Leaders in Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery 2020.  Who’s Who Legal is one of the world’s leading directories of legal practitioners.

Four Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss professionals have been recognized as Global Leaders in Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery 2019. Who’s Who Legal is one of the world’s leading directories of legal practitioners.

John Moscow spoke to Law360 regarding the investigation of Tyco International by the Manhattan district attorney's office under Robert Morgenthau.

“The new government of Tamaulipas is committed to taking all measures to stamp out corruption and return the proceeds of corruption to the people from whom they have been stolen,” Kaufmann said in a press release. “There are many ways that the United States courts can be used in a proactive way to trace and seize ill-gotten assets.”

The Appellate Division, First Department, recently affirmed the dismissal of various claims brought by New Greenwich Litigation Trustee, successor to the claims of two feeder funds in the Bernard Madoff affair, against various third-party fund administrators, accountants and auditors.

One source commented, “I can’t think of an improvement to its practice. We’ve worked with several leading international law firms and in our experience when it comes to complex, high-stakes issues Lewis Baach provides unmatched value.”

In a decision issued on Feb. 5, the U.K. Supreme Court quashed a notice pursuant to Section 2(3) of the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, that sought to require a U.S. corporation, KBR Inc., to produce documents located in the U.S.  The decision has important consequences for cross-border discovery and investigations, as the U.S. and the U.K. appear to be taking divergent approaches.

The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia recently denied a petition to recognize and enforce an international arbitration award against a government-owned airline on jurisdictional grounds.  The decision in UAB Skyroad Leasing Inc. v. OJSC Tajik Air, 20-cv-0763 (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2021) illustrates the hurdles to enforcing an arbitral award against a foreign state-owned enterprise, even when that enterprise is engaged in pure commercial activities and controlled by the state. 

There is a popular misconception that asset forfeiture is limited to the luxury cars, private jets and speedboats of drug dealers, but many well-meaning businesses and individuals are finding themselves with their assets seized under statutes that provide U.S. authorities extremely broad powers. And these seizures often occur without any warning to, or even accusation against, the owner of the assets. Once seized it can take years to obtain recovery of perfectly legal assets. In these uncertain times, as many well-meaning people seek the relative safety of the U.S. banking system, individuals and companies in many countries may innocently use money-transfer systems that exponentially increase the risk of having their assets seized. Why does this happen and how can it be avoided?

In these tough times, when clients are looking to protect assets and increase revenue, it is more important than ever to ensure that their arbitral awards are collectible. A truly successful outcome requires the ability to enforce and monetize the award that was won in the arbitration. When faced with a recalcitrant award debtor, it is imperative to think strategically and work closely with counsel and experts to enforce and identify recoverable assets.

Eric Lewis focuses on three key areas: (1) the widening of the net from sanctioned individuals to their families; (2) the application of the evasion provisions to foreign persons; (3) the bringing of new classes within existing sanctions.