During the ultra-fast 25 minute session, the panellists asked attendees to consider the following scenario:

At 0800 hours an enforcement officer arrives unannounced with a camera crew and legal team in a coordinated attack – potentially across multiple jurisdictions with back-to-back freezing orders.

Watch the 25 minute speed podcast at this link and read the top tips below.

The first 24 hours

Kicking off the discussion, Barry Coffey explained what steps should be taken in the first 24 hours of receiving the order – a critical period that requires respondents to enlist the help of a specialist legal team and ideally be ready to consider all stakeholder communications. While counter-intuitive, Barry emphasised the need to comply with the order once served, as non-compliance could result in parties being held in contempt of court, with serious repercussions for individuals.

Walking the audience through next steps, Barry outlined the actions for day two as parties prepared for the ‘return date’, a hearing that typically is ‘in camera’ and involves notifying the respondent of the evidence presented by the applicant. At this stage, the applicant must demonstrate a valid case against the respondent regarding their assets and maintain a duty of fair representation. Respondents can contest the order, request changes to the terms, or agree to extend the order.

Barry also laid out the opportunities for legal advisers to support clients during the proceedings, preventing acute hardship and business harm. He explained that freezing orders usually include exceptions that allow the respondent to continue their daily life, accessing funds for ordinary living expenses such as mortgage payments and household bills. The order also makes provisions for reasonable legal expenses and can provide for significant fees for communications specialists.

Other urgent considerations – communications strategy

Steering attendees through the non-legal considerations, Claire Davidson stressed that communications is part of the strategic armoury that the claimant side will use to reinforce their narrative behind the order.

Claire offers a quick list of actions that should be put in place in the first 24 to 48 hours:

• Form a Crisis Management Team (CMT) to build the bridge between the communications and legal teams, as well as any other advisers.

• The CMT should be made up of key decision-makers, with licence to approve actions and messages, the CMT should map out with whom they must communicate, why and what can they say. This might include employees, shareholders, suppliers and political leadership.

• Media may be one route, but other channels (pre-scripted direct conversations, pre-agreed emails/letters, judicial use of social media) may better serve the defendant.

• All statements MUST be approved by the legal team, to avoid escalating issues in the public domain. All of this requires respondents to move at lightning speed, particularly as the other ‘side’ will be already working to create an environment where their narrative can be compelling and persuasive.

• Respondents should clearly communicate that undertaking certain actions, such as compliance, is not an acceptance of the freezing order, rather that it is part of the legal due process.

• By using experienced specialist communications advisers to control the narrative, the CMT can plan with the respondent’s legal team, how to deliver all communications today, and map out the potential scenarios likely to arise and plan for going forward.

Matthew Ewens then highlighted key considerations when bringing a civil claim involving law enforcement and worldwide freezing orders. While it might seem unduly restrictive, prosecutors typically seek certainty for potential future criminal proceedings, with asset recovery being equally important.

For business trading, if activities are not part of the criminal investigation, operations may be permitted to continue. While there is a process to set aside the order, it is crucial to note that these proceedings are private. Any communications with prosecutors should be handled carefully, as statements made can be used as evidence in their investigation.

Claire rounded off the event by emphasising, when dealing with communications, it is essential to have key decision-makers present and licensed to make swift and binding decisions, while remaining mindful of the ongoing criminal investigation that may require response.

The full panel discussion can be viewed here.