Alan Sheeley discusses the law regarding the privileged status of investigations has been in flux since Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (2017) EWHC 1017 (QB) (“ENRC”) was handed down in May 2017. The recent decision of Bilta & Ors v RBS & Anor (2017) EWHC 3535 (Ch) (“Bilta”), in which Pinsent Masons acted on behalf of RBS, is therefore an important decision as it confirms that ENRC is not a determinative statement of principle as privilege can apply to investigations on the right set of facts.
Jane Colston speaks to CDR about the importance of asking defendants to disclose virtual currencies, like Bitcoin, in freezing, disclosure or search orders. CDR also reported on Michael Booth QC's recent talk to the CFLA about the role of technology in fraud investigations. First published in: www.cdr-news.com
Jane Colston and Louise Verrill of Brown Rudnick LLP report on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the insolvency profession. This article was originally published by Eurofenix
Trevor Mascarenhas and Jon Felce of PCB Litigation LLP consider Abela and others v Baadarani (Third Party: Fakih)  EWHC 269 (Ch), where a search order was granted against a third party.
Jane Colston and Roger Kennell of Brown Rudnick LLP consider Holyoake v Candy  EWHC 970 (Ch) in which the Chancery Division granted a “notification injunction” requiring subsequent disclosure of the disposal of property assets rather than a full freezing order preventing their disposal in the first place. The decision raises interesting questions about what must be shown by a claimant to get such an injunction, whether risk of dissipation should be proven to a lower standard for the lesser remedy, and whether fortification of the undertaking in damages by the claimant is required.
Alan Sheeley and Craig Connal QC of Pinsent Masons LLP review a recent Privy Council ruling that relaxes the restrictions on recovering fraudulent payments through backwards tracing. This article was first published in the Trust Quarterly Review, Volume 13, Issue 4 2015.
Clive Freedman QC of 7 King’s Bench Walk examines various bars to the enforcement or recognition of judgments based upon fraud, public policy, breaches of natural justice, and judgments amounting to penalties.
Alan Sheeley and Mehmet Karagoz of Pinsent Masons LLP analyse the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Jetivia SA and another v. Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and Others  UKSC 23, in which it was decided that a company can pursue a claim against its directors for a breach of duty and that it will not be prevented from doing so by the illegality defence on the basis that the knowledge of the directors is not attributed to the company.
Anthony Edwards and Matthew Hardcastle of TV Edwards consider the practical impact of the judgment in R (Lord) v SFO  EWHC 865 (Admin), which concerned the legality of the Serious Fraud Office’s decision to deny the attendance of a specific firm of solicitors to a compulsory interview held under s. 2 Criminal Justice Act 1987 in circumstances where the interviewees chose to be represented by the same firm of solicitors acting for their corporate employer.
Anthony Edwards and Matthew Hardcastle of TV Edwards examine the impact of developments in the Codes of Practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on interviews under caution, pre-interview disclosure of information, search warrants and adverse inference/pre-interview disclosure.
We welcome all contributions, short or long, in relation to recent developments in commercial fraud and any other topics that may be of interest to members.
If you would like to submit an article, please email Charles Thomson.