Business relationships are dependent on contracts, almost by definition. These contracts tend to have firm language about exits.
Unfortunately, firm language does not always equate to clarity. Furthermore, some contracts seek to supersede the law. We help our clients understand how to navigate this complex environment and pursue their bests interests — in the real world, not in the imaginary one of unenforceable documents.
We find that some contract terms — those governing the sale of ownership interests in corporations, for example — often have little basis in law. Aspirational language does not belong in binding documents. It certainly does not typically prove an effective foundation for the lawsuits our clients face.
Of course, the flaws are not always obvious. We must often conduct significant investigation to reveal them. The context necessary sometimes includes all levels of law, up to and including international business regulations.
Why do enterprise-level companies and experienced businesspeople sign faulty contracts? That question might form the basis of future lawsuits. For example, the responsibility for poor drafting of a document could fall on an attorney, leading to a claim for legal malpractice.
There is more to the dispute resolution process than simply knowing what went wrong and who is responsible. Protecting clients’ interests often means relying heavily on our ability to communicate failures of complex, interrelated systems to those who might not understand — or might not want to.
We research meticulously, negotiate fairly and litigate persuasively. Through these processes, we work to uncover the evidence that benefits our clients’ positions, and then communicate that information effectively.