Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 APRIL 2005

Financial Institutions Face Liaibility If They Fail To Freeze Funds

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

The powerful <I>Mareva </I>or freezing injunction prevents a party from removing, spending, or dissipating funds in the course of litigation. It is issued to prevent a party (usually a <I>prima facie </I>fraudster) from depriving a creditor of the benefits of a final judgment.

CanadaFinance and Banking

By Benoît M. Provost (Montréal), William S. Robertston (Toronto), David C. Whelan (Calgary), Pierre B. Côté (Montréal) Marc Jolicoeur (Ottawa), James W. Mathers (Toronto), Geoffrey Thompson (Vancouver), David A. Crerar (Vancouver), D. Ross McGowan (Vancouver) and Geoffrey Thompson (Vancouver)

Originally published March 2005

Summary

The powerful Mareva or freezing injunction prevents a party from removing, spending, or dissipating funds in the course of litigation. It is issued to prevent a party (usually a prima facie fraudster) from depriving a creditor of the benefits of a final judgment. A claimant obtaining a freezing order enforces it primarily by serving it on persons and institutions that hold funds for the enjoined party: most commonly, banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from