Corporate Advisory Network presents Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution, containing detailed profiles of leading experts who help to resolve corporate and commercial disputes. Comprising lawyers, forensic accountants and consultants, this group of experts helps their clients to navigate litigation, arbitration and mediation processes. These experts have extensive experience representing clients in court proceedings, domestic and international arbitration, mediated settlements and negotiations. They are frequently involved in disputes related to commercial agreements, intellectual property, product liability, negligence claims, class actions, debt recovery and insolvency, labour and employment, and antitrust issues, among others.
The forensic accountants and expert witnesses in this group advise on issues such as forensic analysis, quantification of losses, fraud investigations and measuring financial damages. These experts have acted for and advised public and private corporations, investment funds, directors and officers, government agencies, and industry groups, in addition to many other entities. Whether you are a business professional seeking advice on commercial disputes, or an advisor looking to expand your network by forging new relationships, CAN provides contacts with the experience to meet your needs.
Australia • British Virgin Islands • Canada • Cayman Islands • France • Germany • Guernsey • Hong Kong • Ireland • Italy • Malaysia • South Africa • Spain • Switzerland • United Kingdom • United States
Abencys Restructuring SLP • Ashurst LLP • Baker Tilly • BM&T • BMC Group, Inc. • Brodies LLP • Campbells • Carey Olsen • CCP Financial Consultants Limited • Chaitons LLP • Chiomenti Studio Legale • Conyers Dill & Pearman • David Rubin & Partners • Deloitte • EY • Ferrier Hodgson • Ferrier Hodgson MH • FTI Consulting • Gall • Grant Thornton • HMP Hartmann Müller Partners • Independent Trustees (Pty) Ltd • James Bates Brannan Groover LLP • Jausus • JMW Solicitors LLP • Kevin McElcheran Commercial Dispute Resolution • KPMG • KPMG (BVI) Limited • KPMG AG • KPMG AG WPG • Kugman Partners • Lamberth, Cifelli, Ellis & Nason, P.A. • Maples & Calder • McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP • Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP • Opus Restructuring LLP • Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP • Pathfinder Strategic Partners LLP • PKF Cooper Parry Group Limited • Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C. • Prager Dreifuss • RHSW Caribbean • Schultze & Braun • Simon Associés • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates • Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. • SSG Capital Advisors, LLC • Studio Legale Avv. Giuseppe Iannaccone e Associati • Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP • TnuiCapital • Travers Thorp Alberga • TurningSA Corporate Renewal Solutions • Wenger Plattner • Winthrop Couchot PC
Although becoming embroiled in a dispute of any kind is an unfortunate and often extremely uncomfortable state of affairs for any corporate entity, it is a scenario that is, nevertheless, virtually unavoidable for those operating within the cutthroat business world.
That said, should such a situation come to pass, businesses are no doubt comforted by the knowledge that solutions to their predicament are available – chief among these being recourse to litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Both methods of resolution – litigation and ADR – have their advocates, with the plusses and minuses very much dependent on the situation at hand. Yet, in many cases, litigation is viewed as the last resort for parties in dispute, the perceived advantages often proving to be a double-edged sword.
In the case of ADR, be it early neutral evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation or arbitration, the initial edge it has is due to the tacit understanding that no dirty laundry will be aired for public consumption. For many parties, the importance of the privacy afforded them by arbitration makes the process, like other forms of ADR, an obvious choice when they are dealing with a dispute. It is generally assumed as a matter of commercial dealings that arbitration proceedings will be confidential and that is, in the most part, true. Arbitration is private in that third-parties who are not involved in the arbitration agreement cannot attend any hearings or play any part in the proceedings; however, the confidentiality offered to parties is not always so watertight. There are a number of considerations that parties entering into arbitration must take into account. Factors such as the choice of seat, for example, can have a major bearing on the process.
Be that as it may, what is certainly beyond doubt is that ADR, in all its forms, can be a valuable tool – an opportunity for parties to reach an amicable solution without recourse to litigation proceedings that are likely to prove lengthy and costly.
However, the uptick in the use of arbitration and other forms of ADR is not limited to just traditional, and established seats. In areas such as Hong Kong and the UAE, arbitration has emerged as time and cost effective means of dispute resolution, which is acting as a major fillip for those regions as they look to attract greater international investment for multinationals that might otherwise be hesitant to rely on local courts. There is a broader acceptance of international commercial arbitration. More parties are turning to arbitration as means of resolving their disputes, particularly those that are cross-border in nature.
Of course, neither ADR nor litigation can be considered a panacea, since ADR typically results in an arrangement where everyone gets something, a construct that can be somewhat unpalatable for the party that is largely deemed to have been in an unimpeachable position.
Likewise, litigation can be an unsatisfying method for resolving a dispute, in that it is a zero-sum game with only one winner and one loser, with the losing party facing an outcome that could be nothing short of oblivion.
Despite this capacity to reward while, at the same time, frustrate, the litigation vs. ADR debate continues to rage and shows little sign of abating.