SHARP assists its clients, from the contract negotiation stage (proofreading shareholders’ agreements, liability guarantees, company transfer agreements, SPA, industrial agreements, distribution agreements and partnership agreements), to the enforcement (as the claimant or the defendant) of court decisions.

The pre-litigation phase is a crucial stage during which the case can be steered in a direction that may facilitate the search for a settlement or achieving a favourable decision from the court.

Thus, the involvement of SHARP law firm, from the time the dispute arises, cannot only allow a solid case to be built but may also, depending on the case, prevent the litigation from arising in the first place, and so avoid substantial court costs.

In fact, it is often the case that a letter sent at the right time can avoid litigation overseveral years.

The pre-litigation phase is also the stage where the case is built on the evidence gathered.

Involving SHARP as early as possiblecan also facilitate the gathering of evidence and, therefore, may contribute to building a solid case, particularly through use of the procedural means provided for that purpose, such as a Court order grounded on article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which can be drawn on so that an expert report can be obtained or to permit documents to be seized from opposing parties, documents which may prove instrumental in the success of your case.

SHARP’S lawyers are also competent in the field of enforcement proceedings, whether these are conducted prior to the litigation arising (precautionary measures) that are intended to secure an endangered receivable, or, once an enforceable court decision has been delivered (interim or definitive enforcement), to enforce said decision.

SHARP has thus developed expertise in the recovery of complex receivables, which involves identifying assets in several countries as well as seizing said assets as part of the enforcement of court decisions or of precautionary measures.

Disputes are no longer necessarily resolved before courts or arbitrators but rather by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) measures, such as mediation, conciliation, negotiation and settlement agreement.

ADR therefore tend to be practically mandatory pre-requisites to the bringing of a legal action (excluding emergency proceedings), whether this is due to the fact that they are included in dispute resolution clauses or because they are proposed, or even imposed, by the courts to which one of the parties to the litigation has applied.

ADR have higher rates of success and are keen to avoid lengthy, risky and costly proceedings for all parties.

When the case lends itself and in accordance with their clients, SHARP’S lawyers systematically prefer toprivilege a settlement agreement at the very beginning of the case and propose contacting their opposing counsels when the latter have made themselves known.

Only if and when these amicable proceedings have failed will a judicial solution be contemplated.

It is also sometimes the case that negotiations can resume during the procedure or even during the deliberation phase i.e. in the time between the final hearing and the pronouncement of judgement (interim order or final judgement).