01
Re-map the asset surface
Rebuild the asset register from scratch — bank relationships, real property, vehicles, receivables — as it stood the day execution would issue, not the day the writ was filed.
Matter closed · 2024
Home/ Representative matters/ Brief 01/07
Cross-border judgment enforcement against a defaulting borrower group.
A tier-1 commercial bank sought enforcement on a multi-instrument facility after a defaulting borrower moved assets across three jurisdictions. The firm led a co-ordinated garnishee strategy, asset-tracing programme and structured private-treaty settlement that materially exceeded the bank’s modelled recovery.
- File ref
- BR-01 / 07
- Sector
- Banking · Recovery
- Year
- 2024
- Forum
- Federal High Court
- Outcome
- Recovery exceeded model
01 The mandate
What the firm was instructed to do.
The three sides of every brief: the client, the ask, and the constraint that defined the route.
Client
Tier-1 commercial bank
Lender on a multi-instrument facility, with prior counsel having paused enforcement after the borrower’s first round of procedural objections.
Ask
Convert judgment into collected funds
Recover principal, accrued interest and costs through whichever instruments would clear the asset surface fastest.
Constraint
Assets had moved cross-border
Two of the three operating companies had relocated banking and movable assets across three jurisdictions in the 18 months before judgment.
02 The forum
Where the matter was fought.
Court, regulator and counterparty — the three surfaces the strategy had to clear.
- Court
- Federal High Court · commercial division
- Regulator
- CBN · NDIC reporting · five attached banks
- Reach
- Three jurisdictions · two cross-border letters of request
03 The strategy
Four moves that defined the file.
Not a chronology — the deliberate sequencing of instruments that produced the outcome.
02
Sequence the garnishees
Identify which institutions were most likely to comply quickly and which would litigate procedural objections — and attach them in the right order, in parallel, not sequentially.
03
Cross-border asset trace
Coordinated tracing letters and reciprocal enforcement requests in the two jurisdictions where the obligor group had relocated treasury operations.
04
Structured private-treaty settlement
Negotiate a private-treaty close-out on terms that converted the contested balance into collected cash, accelerated against the bank’s modelled recovery curve.
04 The workstream
How the time was spent.
Four phases with the deliverable each produced. Phases overlap by design.
Phase 01 · Month 1 – 2
Asset discovery
Re-mapped the obligor group’s asset surface against current records; identified five institutions worth attaching.
Asset register · search certificatesPhase 02 · Month 2 – 4
Garnishee program
Filed nisi orders against five institutions in parallel; defended two procedural objections in chambers.
Orders nisi · attachment confirmationsPhase 03 · Month 3 – 6
Cross-border trace
Letters of request issued in two foreign jurisdictions; coordinated counsel onboarded to perfect reciprocal enforcement.
Reciprocal orders · trace memorandaPhase 04 · Month 5 – 8
Private-treaty close
Negotiated a structured settlement at the obligor-group holdco level; closed and disbursed.
Settlement deed · payment plan · release05 Instruments deployed
The legal tools used on this file.
A working register of the principal instruments — for context, not procedure.
No. 01Garnishee order nisi × 3Attachment
No. 02Mareva injunction (intra-jurisdiction)Preservation
No. 03Writ of fieri faciasExecution
No. 04Charging order — real propertyCharge
No. 05Letter of request — foreign courtCross-border
No. 06Worldwide asset-trace instructionDiscovery
06 Outcome metrics
What success looked like in numbers.
The four figures the firm tracked at close — anonymised, but real.
142%
Of the bank’s modelled recovery curve, achieved at close.
8mo
From engagement letter to disbursed funds.
5
Banks attached in parallel under the garnishee programme.
3
Jurisdictions touched — including two reciprocal-enforcement filings.
07 Bench on the matter
Who carried the file.
Lawyers identified by role — engagement letters carry the names.
Recovery & enforcement
Lead Partner
Carried the file from intake; led the close-out negotiation and chaired the asset-mapping discipline.
Garnishee strategy
Senior Associate
Built the parallel garnishee programme and defended the procedural objections raised at first attachment.
“Enforcement is a workstream, not an afterthought. We started building the asset map the day the writ was filed.”
— Lead partner, Recovery & enforcement
08 Lessons we now bake in
What this file changed in how the firm works.
Every closed brief produces an entry in the firm’s working manual. These three came from this matter.
Lesson · 01
Map the asset surface before judgment, not after
The asset surface erodes the moment a debtor knows judgment is coming. By trial date the firm now expects a current asset register on the file — not a year-old one.
Lesson · 02
Garnishee and execution should run in parallel
Sequential filings give the debtor time to move. Running tracks in parallel forces a settlement conversation earlier and on better terms.
Lesson · 03
Cross-border instruments take double the time you budget for
Reciprocal enforcement filings carry their own clock. The firm now opens the foreign track at engagement, not at first delay.
09 Practice areas engaged
The cells of the firm this file drew on.
Most briefs touch three or more practice areas. Here are the three that carried this one.
Confidentiality notice All identifying details have been removed in accordance with the firm’s confidentiality obligations and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners. Sectors, periods, instrument lists and outcomes are illustrative of the matter type — not a representation of specific parties, courts or amounts. Specific matters are discussed only under engagement.