Thursday, January 7, 2021
The 2020 coronavirus pandemic has not spared the asset recovery practice from its profound impacts. As we previously have discussed,[1] the pandemic accelerated trends toward increased globalization and the ability of evasive debtors to move assets fluidly around the world, as business operators, banks, regulators and virtually all market segments rapidly embraced remote work and electronic commerce. This environment requires nimble debt enforcement strategies to leverage the
de rigueur virtual engagement of 2020 and keep pace with assets in transit, and demands the most effective enforcement tools available.
Choosing the right court, based on the right intelligence, is critical to success, and often the difference between complete recovery and years of frustration. In recent years, sophisticated creditors have increasingly recognized the significant investigative value of invoking the long-arm jurisdiction of a U.S. district court. The U.S. trial courts have defined their discovery reach very broadly.[2] Coupled with the broad party-driven discovery scope codified in Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the courts’ extensive long-arm jurisdiction arms creditors in federal court litigation with the tools to conduct global depositions, subpoena non-party testimony and documents, and often secure evidence from far corners of the world.[3] Based on extensive experience utilizing these procedures, we have long advised clients that there is no better ally in the investigation phase of asset recovery efforts than a U.S. federal court.