Litigation / Arbitration
„Strategy requires the integration of external opportunities and internal competence“
– Herrman Simon
Corporate disputes – like, for example, family law disputes – are characterized by their direct effect on the shareholder/partner and their often existential importance. In other words, they require a high degree of tact and dexterity on the part of the adviser to find the right balance between asserting the interests of the shareholder on the one hand, while bearing in mind the interests of the company on the other. No matter how the interests in the matter at hand are assessed, corporate litigation always requires sound strategy and a consistent, competent implementation of the path agreed upon. Out-of-court settlement possibilities should neither be rejected prematurely, nor pursued for too long to avoid inflicting damage to the company and the shareholder. We have many years of experience dealing with such disputes and implementing different strategic approaches. Our approach ranges from a quick, uncompromising and aggressive enforcement of our clients’ claims and the defense of claims made against our clients to the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution.
Disputes governed by commercial law have a number of characteristics a client’s legal adviser has to bear in mind. For example, we continue to see compensation claims for commercial agents negotiated at a “capped”, so-called highest level of compensation, i.e. an accurate calculation of compensation claims is not made. The success of claims made under transport law is subject to particular time limits being adhered to. The list of such anomalies could be continued ad infinitum. It does make it clear that high-quality legal advice greatly depends on the right level of specialization. This applies all the more so to questions of international commercial law where the conflict of laws is often of decisive importance. And often in commercial disputes the strategic enforcement of an issue tends to tip the scales in a client’s favor. We look back on a wealth of experience dealing with commercial disputes. GRIP LEGAL will advise you comprehensively, efficiently and assertively on your concerns. From the outset we will discuss different strategic approaches with you and then pursue rigorously the strategy jointly formulated and agreed by you and GRIP LEGAL.
The ruling of a dispute by arbitration may seem similar to the procedure followed by a state court, but there are special features requiring particular specialization and experience on the part of legal advisers. The members of our arbitration practice group have been advising companies on arbitration since the beginning of their legal career and for their consulting role can draw on experience as members of national and international arbitration courts in over 100 cases, especially according to the rules of the DIS, ICC, SCAI and SCC. This means they are well connected in the arbitration scene and know how to use the special features of arbitration proceedings for the benefit of their clients. That is why Dr. Denis Gebhardt was voted by “Best Lawyers” and Handelsblatt, Germany’s national business daily, as a leading adviser in this legal category. We pass on our expertise in arbitration proceedings to the client, so this instrument for settling disputes is not a “black box”. This is the basis on which we develop the right arbitration strategy with the client, beginning with the right choice of arbitrator, preparing the case and the evidence and selecting suitable proceedings elements (e.g. pre-trial discovery) or the enforcement of an arbitration ruling.
The initiation of proceedings in a state court or in arbitration should always be the last resort in view of the time and money it costs a company. That is why our conflict consultation is always focused on clarifying in advance the nature of the dispute and using all available options to do so. Apart from classical settlement negotiations there are alternative ways of settling disputes, like, for example, mediation. And we never lose sight of the fact that the case could still end up in court, nor that the pre-trial settlement attempt has to be made with a reasonable investment in time and effort.