UK: No Penalty Without Clarity

In the matter of Wintermute Trading Limited -v- Terraform Labs Pte Limited, O1 was made under the Evidence (Proceedings in Jurisdictions) Act 1975 following a request from a judge in proceedings brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Terraform is a defendant.

There arose a dispute concerning Wintermute's compliance with O1 and Terraform requested that the Senior Master make O2, in which Wintermute were ordered to comply with O1 on pain of a penal notice.

Wintermute appealed, asserting O2 to be abusive or oppressive in that it failed to specify what, if any, further documents were required. Mr Justice Lavender, hearing the matter, agreed, noting that, had Wintermute asked the Court on O2 being granted: "What have you just ordered me to do by 4 pm tomorrow?" the Court would have had to reply, "I don't know. Possibly nothing. Possibly to produce a document or documents, but I don't know which document or documents, because that remains to be determined."
Mr Justice Lavender found O2 offended the general principles requiring clarity in orders endorsed with penal notices, and so set it aside.

Despite being English law, this decision is of interest in that it provides further clarity to potential applicants wishing to enforce compliance with their orders; English law decisions are persuasive in offshore Courts and Mr Justice Lavender neatly summarised the principles applicable to the granting of penal orders.