THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> On Wednesday, 25 March 2026, Signature Litigation, in collaboration with\u00a0PCB Byrne<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Amanat Chambers<\/strong>, hosted a panel discussion entitled \u201cTurning Awards into Assets: Global Tactics for Enforcement Success\u201d. The panel was moderated by Ms\u00a0Lina Mezher<\/strong>\u00a0(Associate at\u00a0Signature Litigation<\/a>), with participation from Ms\u00a0Diana Barda<\/strong>\u00a0(Partner at Amanat Chambers), Mr\u00a0Howard Newing<\/strong>\u00a0(Partner at Signature Litigation<\/a>), Ms\u00a0Nour Chamieh<\/strong>\u00a0(Associate at\u00a0PCB Byrne<\/a>), and Mr\u00a0Jim Bortman<\/strong>\u00a0(Director of Global Services).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion focused on the practical challenges of transforming an arbitral award into actual recovery. While obtaining a favourable award is often a significant achievement, the panel underlined that enforcement remains a distinct and frequently complex phase, requiring careful planning, coordination and investigative work. The speakers emphasised that enforcement strategy should not be treated as an afterthought, but rather as an integral part of the dispute resolution process from an early stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion first addressed asset identification and preservation. Mr Bortman explained that successful enforcement depends on understanding where the debtor\u2019s assets are located, how they are held and whether they can be targeted effectively. This requires a combination of public records, corporate intelligence, financial analysis and cross-border investigative tools. The speakers noted that debtors may restructure their holdings, transfer assets or use complex corporate vehicles to frustrate enforcement. For this reason, early intelligence gathering is essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Barda then highlighted the importance of combining tools across jurisdictions. She explained that two complementary approaches to enforcement coexist: the English approach, which is based on a global view of the debtor\u2019s assets, and the French approach, which focuses on specific and targeted assets. Under the French approach, enforcement does not target the debtor in abstract terms, but identifiable assets. Effective coordination may therefore involve mapping assets globally through English-style procedures, followed by targeted applications in jurisdictions such as France where specific assets have been identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then addressed the growing role of information sources and investigations. Mr Bortman affirmed that the availability and effective use of data are essential to enforcement proceedings. Ms Barda noted the wide range of tools available, beginning in practice with corporate information databases such as Infogreffe to identify changes in management, registered office or shareholding structure, before turning to news sources, press coverage and public filings. She stressed that a broad approach should be adopted, as apparently minor pieces of information may become significant when considered together. These tools form part of a broader investigative strategy designed to map the location and structure of assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel also considered the issue of costs and the need to define enforcement objectives. Mr Newing stressed the importance of striking a balance between costs, monitoring and anticipation. In his view, the process should begin early, with a clear strategy and priorities. Efficiency depends on rapidly identifying key targets and focusing resources on the assets most likely to produce recovery. Enforcement therefore requires constant assessment of proportionality, as not every available measure will be justified in light of the likely return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Barda then addressed insolvency. She explained that the opening of insolvency proceedings may affect ongoing arbitration or enforcement proceedings. In France, not all interim or conservatory measures are treated in the same way in the event of insolvency. Some may be called into question, which creates a significant risk for creditors. This makes timing and coordination particularly important when the debtor\u2019s financial condition deteriorates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion continued with the distinction between recognition and execution of arbitral awards. Ms Chamieh explained that, in France, for an arbitral award to be recognised within the legal order, an application for exequatur is required. Once granted, exequatur gives the award enforceable effect. Mr Newing added that, in England and Wales, enforcement similarly involves two stages: recognition and execution. Recognition gives the award legal weight, and further measures may then be taken, including the appointment of an administrator over the debtor\u2019s assets in appropriate cases. However, enforcement may still be hindered by public policy exceptions, first domestic and then international.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Chamieh then described certain specific features of the French system. French courts tend to apply their own rules to enforcement. Under French arbitration law, it is not necessary to prove the existence of a written arbitration agreement in the same way as in some other jurisdictions. France, as a party to the New York Convention, applies the principle of the law most favourable to enforcement, making it an attractive jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, even where no assets are located in France. Another important feature is that decisions rendered at the seat annulling an award do not bind French courts, as enforcement is governed by the law of the place where enforcement is sought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Barda also addressed the simultaneous seizure of key assets. The objective of this strategy is to create maximum disruption and provide a strong incentive for the debtor to settle. She observed that, in some cases, this approach is highly effective, leading debtors to settle much more rapidly, sometimes within weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the panel turned to the future evolution of award enforcement. Mr Bortman expressed some scepticism, pointing to the persistence of heterogeneous legal frameworks and fragmented enforcement procedures across jurisdictions. He highlighted the limits of a system in which enforcement strategies must continuously adapt to multiple and unpredictable legal environments. The discussion nevertheless confirmed that successful enforcement depends on early preparation, precise asset intelligence, coordinated cross-border action and a pragmatic assessment of costs and recovery prospects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
R\u00e9becca Ctorza,<\/strong>\u00a0Master 2 International Economic Law Graduate,\u00a0Paris 2 Pantheon-Assas<\/strong>, LL.M. International Law and Management Candidate, HEC<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n