Uncategorized

Litigation decisions should be made with the same economic discipline as any other business decision. We build an economic model for every case, incorporating the cost, chance of success, and likely recovery.

We want to understand your busines as well as you do. Our preference is to collaborate with our clients and use business strategy tools – not just legal tools – to find the best solution to any problem.

We all buy insurance to protect ourselves against risks, but insurance companies often deny legitimate claims.

We enforce all kinds of policies where you have been sued but your insurer refuses to help you.

Business is global, so lawyers are not effective unless they can act across borders.

We have business or legal experience in more than twenty countries around the world. We are members of IR Global and have a network of investigators and law firms around the world so we can obtain reliable information and assistance, anywhere in the world.

Fraudsters and rogues are hide assets all over the world, and don’t cooperate with the law.
Recovering these assets requires planning, patience, and intense creativity:

• Applications compelling third parties to disclose information about the rouges
• Private search warrant applications.
• Asset freeze applications

We love technology and our approach to intellectual property cases is the same as our approach to all other claims – we craft our clients’ cases to present them to the court as a compelling story that is clearly on the side of justice.

Just because the law is technical, or the case involves technology, doesn’t mean it has to be complicated. Our job is to understand the details of the law and the technology so we can speak in clear terms and make the case understandable for everyone.

Minority shareholders can bring oppression claims if they are not treated fairly. These claims are not about strict legal rights but about what is fair in the circumstances, which is measured by the reasonable expectations of the shareholders.

“A lawyer who has not studied economics… is very apt to become a public enemy”

– Brandeis J.

Law schools do not generally teach anything about business, as opposed to business law, so lawyers learn about business legal forms and contracts, but nothing about the non-legal imperatives of running a business, like corporate finance, marketing, or corporate strategy. And many lawyers resist engaging in any topic that goes beyond the four corners of their legal brief (“I only give legal advice”).

This is highly problematic for business, because every legal problem comes within a business context, and lawyers who are not willing or able to understand that context cannot give good advice.

Business clients want to know how much their case will cost, how long it will take, what the risks are, and the probable result. These four basic elements—cost, risk, time, and reward, are the foundation of the financial analysis of any business proposal, and there is no reason why lawyers cannot make reasonably reliable assessments of these — the law is no more uncertain than many projects undertaken by business, and in many cases is substantially more certain.

And in a litigation context the focus of lawyers should not just be on winning their client’s case but on solving the underlying business problems that were the reason clients came to them in the first place.

We act for both plaintiffs and defendants in fraud and conspiracy claims.

In Global Chinese Press v. Zhang we obtained an injunction giving our clients direct control of the defendant’s businesses well before trial. We obtained orders for a

• Mareva injunction freezing the assets of some of the main defendants, an
• Anton Piller order permitting us to search their residences, and an
• Order appointing a receiver over the defendant’s companies.

We found further incriminating evidence in the search, including evidence of significant diversions of monies in China, and this led to our clients obtaining immediate control of the businesses they claimed ownership of.

However, these orders can be a double-edged sword. If plaintiffs are not scrupulous about the information they give the court when they obtain the orders, they may spend a great deal of time and money and end up with nothing to show for it when the court sets the orders aside, as in Northwestpharmacy.com v. Yates.