MAREVA INJUNCTION

Definition: pre-trial injunction restraining D and persons with control over Ds assets from dealing with their assets in ways that will be detrimental to Ps interests pending trial.

Available where P has a strong prima facie case against D and there is a real risk that D would render themselves judgment-proof, for example, dissipate their assets in order to frustrate Ps efforts to enforce judgment in his/her favour should P prevail at trial judgment -proof

May be obtained before commencement of proceeding or at anytime during the proceedings.
May also be granted after judgment in aid of execution

Obtained on ex parte basis, that is, without notice to D

Purpose:
Protects integrity of civil justice system by ensuring that courts dont give hollow judgments
Prevents D from removing assets from the jurisdiction of a court, or from disposing of, or dealing with assets within the jurisdiction in a way that will frustrate the ends of justice in an action instituted or to be commenced by the P


Origins of Mareva Injunction
Prior to 1975, the common law position was that a P was not entitled to demand from the D security in advance of judgment. Thus, a court could not restrain a D in respect of their assets before trial referred to as the rule in Lister v. Stubbs. See exceptions to this rule in Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, p. 912-3

The English Court of Appeal was faced with foreign Ds in shipping cases, who could easily transfer assets out of London to evade execution. It recognised another exception to the rule in Lister v. Stubbs to grant an order that freezes Ds assets within the jurisdiction of the court if there is a risk of evading judgment although P has no proprietary interests in the asset in question. In effect, a pre-judgment execution.

Injunction named after one of the early shipping cases - Mareva Compania v. International Bulkcarriers SA (1975).

Injunction was intended to protect the interests of creditors against non-resident Ds where there was a real risk of removal of assets from the courts jurisdiction in order to defeat the Ps claim.

In Mareva Compania v. International Bulkcarriers SA, the D was a foreign corp. There was evidence that D would move money deposited to its credit in a London bank before trial unless D was restrained and this could defeat the Ps claim. The C.A. upheld an ex parte injunction enjoining the D from disposing of its assets within or moving it outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Lord Denning ignored the rule in Lister which he saw as an obstacle to such an injunction and instead relied on the Judicature Act, s 45 which empowers the court to grant any order they deem just and convenient in the circumstance as necessary to prevent the D from flouting the process of the English courts to the detriment of creditors. In BC, such a jurisdiction is found in the Law and Equity Act, s. 39.

Domestic Defendants
Originally granted only against foreign Ds
Mareva injunctions may now be issued against domestic Ds so long as P establishes substantial risk of dissipation of assets pending trial to his or her detriment - Aetna
Not restricted to assets likely to be removed from a courts jurisdiction. Includes assets that may be disposed of within the courts jurisdiction
Not limited to money. May also include goods in the jurisdiction of the court - Aetna

Adoption of Mareva Injunction in Canada
Canadian courts have jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions to restrain the disposition of assets prior to trial where it is deemed necessary: Aetna Financial Services

Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman (SCC)
Facts: D, Aetna, is a federally incorporated company doing business in a number of provinces including Manitoba. P alleged an improper appointment of a receiver for its business. D was in the process of winding up its operations in Manitoba. P was concerned that D would transfer its assets out of Manitoba, which could make it difficult for P to execute a judgment in its favour in Manitoba. P sought a Mareva injunction to restrain Ds from removing their assets from Manitoba pending trial.

Held: Court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in a proper case. However, injunction was not available in this case.
Removal of assets from Manitoba posed no risk to Ps interest. Injunction not available unless there is evidence that D is moving assets in order to defeat Ps claim.
As well, there are statutory provisions for the enforcement of Manitoba judgments in other provinces that can protect Ps interests, thereby making a Mareva injunction unnecessary

The Federal Element
Mareva injunction originated in a unitary system (U.K.). Works differently in a federal country
Reference to jurisdiction in the Canadian context could mean a provincial and/or federal jurisdiction
Given reciprocal agreements for enforcement of judgments across provinces, mere transfer of assets b/n provinces does not constitute removal from jurisdiction to warrant a Mareva injunction.

Criteria for Obtaining a Mareva Injunction
1. Accessibility Threshold: Strong prima facie case Aetna
2. Degree of Risk: Genuine risk of dissipation of asset to avoid the possibility of a judgment
Mere transfer of assets b/n provinces not sufficient to justify a Mareva injunction
Aetna suggests that availability should depend on the purpose for which D seeks to move assets Not available where D is moving assets in the normal course of its business.

Q. Does Aetna exclude availability of injunction absent fraudulent intent?

Some Canadian courts have limited availability of Mareva injunctions to situations of fraudulent intent See see R v. Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. (1995) 125 DLR (4th) 1, 14-15 (Ont. C.A.); Chitel v. Rothbart (1982) 141 DLR (3d) 268 (Ont. C.A.); In Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Blyth (1993) 113 DLR (4th) 501 (FCA) - CB, pp. 928-9
BC courts have generally adopted a liberal approach and may grant a Mareva injunction even where there is no deliberate attempt to frustrate the execution of judgment - Mooney v. Orr (1994), 100 BCLR (2d) 335 (SC). In Gateway Village Investments v. Sybra Food Services Ltd. (1987) 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 234 (SC) CB, p. 928, Southin J. (as she then was) held that Aetna simply meant that jurisdiction in a federal state is a factor, albeit an important factor to be considered in deciding whether it is appropriate to grant a Mareva Injunction.
Practical Considerations: A Mareva injunction is very intrusive for Ds, yet it provides Ps opportunities for obtaining meaningful remedies. Should the injunction be limited to situations where there is no evidence of fraudulent intent?
Would your answer be different where the amount involved is small relative to the Ds net worth? See Gateway Village Investments v. Sybra Food Services Ltd. (1987) 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 234 (SC) CB, p. 928

3. Ps obligations:

i. Full and frank disclosure of facts actually known to P and those that could have been known upon reasonable enquiry- Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine SA, [1979] QB 645 (CA), adopted by the SCC in Aetna CB, p. 927, n. 2
ii. P must give particulars and grounds for basis of his or her application
iii. Undertaking in damages


4. Location of Assets: Injunction may be granted in respect of Ds assets anywhere in the world but courts often refrain from making orders extraterritorial unless it is absolutely necessary to protect Ps interests.

Scope of Mareva Injunction
Order is limited to extent of Ds assets necessary to protect Ps interest in the particular case

Order may be ambulatory Could affect Ds current assets and those acquired subsequent to order

Does not extend to property that D holds in a capacity other than that in which s/he is being sued

Effect of a Mareva Injunction on Third Parties
Injunction may often have repercussions for third parties holding Ds assets
Named third parties required to respect terms of the injunction or risk contempt proceedings
In Z. Ltd. v. A-Z & AA-LL Ltd., the English C.A. outlined the rights and responsibilities of third parties regarding compliance with Mareva injunctions.
i. Indemnity P to indemnify third parties for cost of compliance
ii. Third parties to be given precise notice re assets covered by injunction and to what extent
iii. Search P may request third parties to locate Ds assets at Ps expense
iv. Third Parties Named P to furnish court with names of third parties to be served
v. Maximum Amount Asset to be held not to exceed value of Ps claim.
vi. Normal living expenses Order to specify amount permitted for D to use for normal living expenses
vii. Joint Account Order may cover assets held in a joint account if court deems it necessary to protect Ps interests
viii. Return Day Order may specify date that D or affected third party may return to court to be heard
ix. Undertakings P to give damages undertakings to D and affected third parties
x. Discovery D to be given opportunity to prove that s/he has sufficient assets to satisfy judgment and specify the same. Failure to disclose reinforces perception that D is evading judgment.


Creditors
A Mareva injunction does not affect the right of Ds creditors Aetna

Does not give P priority vis-à-vis other creditors

kerajaan malaysia nak saman sebab x dapat apa² keuntungan pon dari SC, kalau kita fikirkan pon buat ape nak daftarkan kat malaysia... cukuplah setakat kat republic of Dominica, kita buat urusan pon secara online, bila TT dah deduct duit kat bank kira dah cukup ok. tapi, masalahnya investor juga yang buat hal, berteam-team power ranger, over promote, buat banner, bussiness card, flyers, majlis makan malam, ucapan power etc... (secara x berdaftar).

Aku rasa dia orang tak berhak saman SCash, tapi menyaman 3 orang atas dasar kutip duit tanpa lesen. Perbetulkan konsep ini kalau silap. hehe.

Sila rujuk

: http://www.sc.com.my/eng/html/resources/press/pr_20070710mareva.pdf

Salam ukhuwwah...... saya baru tgk berite TV3 ttg SS nak saman SMF..... agak menarik.... Sekurang2nya kita tahu yang SC adalah genuine, sbb tu kjaan boleh ambil tindakan saman. So, yg kata Sc scam tu, ternyata x betul....
Sekarang persoalannya cuma, adakah SC mengambil deposit secara haram? Jika diikut, byk sykt luar negara yg buat secara online, x pernah berdaftar, tapi menerima duit dari pembeli/pelabur, tapi krn mereka tidak menggugat sesetengah pihak di Msia, so x kena tindakan.
Sekarang kita tunggu dan lihat krn di dlm TOS dan FAQ SC dan SMF dan tertulis semuanya. Kita lihat nanti bgaimana kjaan Msia nak membuktikan kesalahan SC dan SMF dan kita lihat tindakan dr SC/SMF.
Cuma harap2 tindakan SC/SMF tidak merugikan pelabur dari Msia......

Yg tu x leh dakwa bang... sbb dah hilang ngan duit pelabur/peleburnya skali..... x kan nak dakwa sykt yg x wujud?

kalau cam gitu, sedaplah owner SCAM tue.... tp mengikut paper Jun dulu, BNM dan SS dah dpt trace ownernya??? yg ruginyer pelabur.... owner kenyang.... tp bila SC nie dpt kesan, kena serang.... Pening mcm nie....

Tak sabar nak tengok ACTION & REACTION SMF,SC terhadap injunksi antarabangsa Mareva daripada SS M'sia. Tunggu....dan lihat...

nak saman swisscash? saman pasai apa? atas kesalahan apa? saman malu ke? saman rugi ke? betui ke dak kerajaan kita ni? ke propaganda belaka tu? nak kata SMF tak de lesen melabur kat Malaysia... dia tu offshore. tak boleh ke offshore? kesian la SMF kalau dah 200 buah negara saman dia... bankrup la Michael Mansfield nak bayar saman.
pikir logik laa... logik... biar logik pikir tuh. kita kan ada akal. habis tu lama dah Pulau Labuan kena saman dek negara lain kerana buat bisnes. Lama dah Public Mutual Fund kena saman dengan suruhanjya sekuriti Filipina, Brunei Singapore dan lain lain yang ada urusniaga dengan Public MF.
Jangan la buat kelako lebih lebih wahai kerajaan Malaysia (yang dikatakan nombor dua maju dalam bidang perdagangan di Asia) poooo raacit. Kerajaan sedar tak apa yang di propaganda kan tu. Kerana mulut santan binasa... kang tak pasal pasal kerajaan pulak kena saman balik.

rentikanlah propaganda huduh tu. kami bukan pelabur mentah. dulu aku selalu ikut YB pergi berkempen kerana aku yang dinamakan pemuda UMNO. sekarang ni.... aku cukup sedih... rupa-rupanya kerajaan aku macam ni... nasib baik Datuk Awang Adek ada keluar kenyataan.

pikirlah... sekarang dunia globalisasi. nak saman kerana kutip deposit haram.. tak pala. saman la... jangan mengarut nak saman SMF. ke cakap je bagi orang takut dengan swisscash. Kerajaan tak perlu risau dah sebab memang orang baru dah tak boleh melabur dah....

ingat ... pilihanraya dah dekat . jangan jadikan pengundi setia UMNO memangkah parti lain kerana hal yang kecik begini...

Salam ukhuwwah.... saya juga bersetuju ngan Aly tu, risau jika SMF/SC amik langkah drastik, ban terus Msia investor..... x kan nak terus beri peluang kpd yg bagi problem kat depa..... kita nih mcm anak2, kjaan Msia tu bapak, SC/SMF tu org juai brg...... Bila bapak x benar org juai brg kat dlm umah dia, x kan org nak juai brg datang.... anak2 kena amk langkah lain, beli kat luar umah ke, atau pindah umah ke....atau senang citer, cari "bapak" baru..... lagipun bapak yg ada skg nih mcm bapak tiri gitu...... cari lah sapa2 yg boleh jadi bapak angkat yg baik....
Tapi kalau masih mahu setia ngan bapak skrg, silakan.....
Yang pasti, kita tunggu pengumuman dari SC...... (macam tunggu pengumuman raya..... nampak ke anak bulan.... atau x nampak?)..... Harap2 pelabur Msia tetap dijaga oleh SC...

Salammm. SMF mega company dan kukuh dalam dunia. Malaysia nak saman lantak ko la woi. . kenapa tak saman goerge soros penyagak matawang dulu. Baru kena kacau sikit dengan goerge soros terkincit kencit dulu. Hampeh laaaa. Saman la yg naik kan harga barang la woiiii. Dalam negara belum selesai nak selesai yang luar.
Dont worry, kita tunggu dan lihattttttt apa macam pukulnye nanti. Jangan kena kacau lagi dengan penyagak tu lagi udah laaaa.
wassalammm

Salam...

saya orang baru di sini... saya rase sedih dgn ape yg menimpe rakyat malaysia ni.. mangse kezaliman para ulamak politik sendiri.. kate nak bantu orang melayu.. ini bukan tolong tapi makin susahkan hidup kaum melayu... Dulu Pak Najib gak yg cakap, orang melayu kene kuasai pasaran global, kuasai ilmu multimedia, jgn mengharapkan bantuan kerajaan dan lain2 lah... Kite baru nak mengorak seruan dah disekat... Entah le tengok je ape yg jadi pas ni...

MUNGKIN JAWAPAN KOT...

1. Sebab ada orang SS layan SC gak kot...

2. Sebab Amek Hassan orang melayu dan operator ABFund orang bukan melayu kot..

3. BNM dah kena main dengan dasar diorang sendiri kot...

4. Sebab lumrah rakyat malaysia suke layan web-web lucah lebih-lebih lagi orang yang duk atas tu kot...

Maaf, gurau-gurau...

sebabnya senang je....ni semua kerana takut orang melayu jadi tuan.paham2 sendirilah bila melayu je yg nampak nak melonjak ada lah berbagai cara n idea dari habitat lain yg nak pancung bagi kodong..

Sebab "yang buta pimpin yang pekak",betul tak boss?

Bole tolong bagi tau c buta dan c pekak supaya jangan bekerja bersama2.
Ramai lagi yg bole bantu mereka tu...suru pi bercuti2 saja lah.

cay999 wrote:

---

Bole tolong bagi tau c buta dan c pekak supaya jangan bekerja bersama2.
Ramai lagi yg bole bantu mereka tu...suru pi bercuti2 saja lah.

---

dia org ni buat2 pekak n buta je....... sebab nak kenakan org

....... lambat laun tuhan juga akan pekakkan telinga n butakan ati org mcm ni..........

tak der akai ker nak saman sc

bro.. waktu dengar berita tu.. rasa lain macam gak aku..risau dan keliru gak gang.. tanya UL.. dia pun tak der maklumat lagi.. iksh.. wife aku maleh bincang pasal sch dah.. he he bepoloh riban weh..

TAPI BILA PIKIR BALIK.. IKSH..OK LER.. MAKSUDNYA SCH NI GOVERMENT PUN DAH IKTIRAF KEWUJUDANNYA.... BUKAN SCAM LER.. CUMA SEKARANG, KERAJAAN NAK BALAS DENDAM.. DAN PERLUKAN WANG UNTUK PILIHANRAYA.. BILA PIKIR PANJANG SIKIT.. RASA LUCU PULAK GOV KITA NI.. MACAM PELAWAK PULAK.. BUKAK ISU NAK CARI PERHATIAN.. SO..AKU PIKIR TAK PAYAH RISAU LER (SIKIT2 TU TAK PER LAR).. NAK TUNJUK BUT KEJER JER TU.. KITA TUNGGU JER MACAM BIASA.. JANGAN KECOH2.. GOV NAK BUAT PROVOKASI.. NAK TUNGGU KITA MELATAH, MELAWAN, TIME TU KITA AKAN KENA HABIS NGAN GOV. SO.. RELEKS DULU.. JOM P MENGETEH DULU...

OK?

Aslmkum,
aku nengok kjaan ni makin ari makin bodo..Mgkn sbb makin byk msalah kot atau trlalu byk remote control dr bwh,jd yg 1st tu pun pning kpala.Msa TUN dulu walaupun eknomi dnia jtuh mrdum,kta tak rsa apa2 pun ksannya.Kjaan bjak bgntung pd KEPALANYA yg bjak.Org bwh smua tnduk bla TUN kluarkn kata2 keramatnya yg mggegarkn kpla otak george soros.Skrg ni apa jd..Memalukn bgsa dan ngra.Aku tak brapa ykin lagi dah ngan kjaan skrg ni.Bknnya nak bg snang rkyt,dlm keadaan eknomi dnia tak tntu sbb knaikn hrga minyak sptutnya kjaan tak boleh halang rkyt bdkari mcari smber pdptn lain.Itu lagi bagus kjaan tak prlu kluar duit pun nak bntu rkyt miskin.Tak prlu bg pampasn kat mgsa bnjir.Kjaan tak pikir pjg sblm saman sc sbb dlm kpala otak dia..Haram..Haram..Riba..Riba..TUN dlu stiap apa yg dia buat dia pikir pjg utk kbaikn smua phak dan x mrugikn sesapa,smua dpt apa yg dkhdaki.Skrg ni aku nengok mcm2 msalah dah blaku dlm ngra,knaikn hrga mnyak mgakibatkn smua kos naik.Paling truk yg trima ksan org kpg.Aku rsa Election ni nnti kjaan mnang tipis je..Org kpg mana yg ada akal tau mnilai apa yg mrka rasa ssah.

to camprocash,

kalau anda fikir kerajaan perlukan wang untuk pilihanraya anda silap..
kerajaan sebenornye dah lama dapat duit dari minyak kite..
sebenarnya kerajaan ni dia nak tunjuk diorg buat keje..
tapi yang bebenornye semua tu hanya propanganda belaka..
kerana itu diorg rasa menguntungkan mereka dimasa hadapan..

yang tak menguntungkan diorg malas nak buat keje..
kena plak untuk rakyat lagi la diorg malas..
so...apa yang boleh buat skrg ni korang faham 2 je la..
keputusan di tangan kita..

GreeNDay wrote:

---

Update skt....he he he....
Sape2 blum tgk brita....Ni ade kat cni....

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/714102/

---

cayalah BRO..pakai enset ker??

Menteri balon duit saper brani saman.......

Symbol
EMF Buy
1.99 Sell
1.94 Change
+0.03 Today High
1.99 Today Low
1.96 Symbol
ACF Buy
1.77 Sell
1.74 Change
+0.01 Today High
1.78 Today Low
1.76