International Judgment and Arbitral Award Collection

Domestic and International Judgment and Arbitral Award Collection

Sequor Law has decades of experience enforcing large judgments rendered in the United States or elsewhere.  Sequor Law uses cash-flow and asset tracing methods to expose concealed assets.  Sequor Law has substantial experience in post-judgment evidence gathering and recovery methods including garnishments, freeze orders, sequestration orders, and execution writs.  Beyond identifying assets of the debtor, Sequor Law vigorously pursues people (“nominees”) and entities (“alter egos”) holding assets for the judgment debtor and those who improperly received monies or property from the debtor.  Additionally, where professionals such as accountants, attorneys and other “asset protection” specialists have participated in the debtor’s asset concealment scheme, Sequor Law pursues actions against those “facilitators”, including actions for conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting liability.  Good litigators know that post-judgment enforcement has become a highly sophisticated and specialized practice area, which is why the top litigators in the U.S. and internationally refer their hard-earned judgments to Sequor Law to enforce.

Back to Practices
Representative Cases

Team

Representative Cases

Click the “+” sign to expand and view our representative cases:

The firm represented the personal representative (the brother-in-law of the decedent) in a New York probate case in enforcing a high value judgment against the decedent’s family member who misappropriated the decedent’s assets both prior to and after his death and misused a limited power of attorney given by the decedent. The case began as a domestication of the New York judgment under the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act which covers judgments rendered by other US states.

The firm represented the holder of a high value judgment rendered in Brazil in obtaining recognition of the judgment under Florida’s Uniform Out of Country Money Judgment Act defeating allegations that the Brazilian orders were not final judgments because they arose from a homologated settlement in Brazil.  The case included depositions and a trial with Brazilian expert legal witnesses testifying about Brazilian law.