The Concern
An equipment supplier had a long commercial relationship with a mid-sized construction company. Read More
What We Did
With counsel, we agreed three lines of inquiry. Read More
What We Found
New entities appeared just before the dispute escalated. Read More
The Outcome
The discounted settlement was declined. Counsel had a verified basis to pursue the full claim. Read More
The Concern
An equipment supplier had a long commercial relationship with a mid-sized construction company. After a dispute over unpaid invoices and contract terms, the construction company owed the supplier [₹X crore].
As the client’s legal counsel prepared to start proceedings, the other side changed its position. Its lawyers said the business was struggling, had few assets left, and could only realistically offer a heavily discounted settlement.
That left the client with a hard choice. If the claim was true, a long and costly legal fight might recover very little. If it wasn’t, accepting the settlement would mean walking away from money that could still be recovered.
The whole strategy came down to one question: if the client won, could it actually collect anything? The other side’s financial statements only showed the picture it wanted to present. Counsel needed an independent, lawfully gathered answer, documented so it could be used in court if needed, before advising the client.
What We Did
- Defined the case question. With counsel, we agreed three lines of inquiry. Did the company really have no recoverable assets? Had any assets or business been moved before or during the dispute? Who controlled any related entities?
- Gathered the evidence. We reviewed corporate registry filings, director and shareholding records, property and charge registers, court and regulatory records, tender awards and other publicly available sources. We also spoke with industry sources, lawfully and discreetly.
- Verified before relying on anything. Each lead was checked against at least one independent source. Leads that couldn’t be properly verified were set aside.
- Made it legally useful. We gave counsel a structured report containing an ownership map, a timeline of asset movements, details of the relevant transfers and a full record of sources. Verified findings were kept separate from matters that needed further inquiry or formal disclosure.
- Stayed with the case. As proceedings went on, we answered new questions from counsel, including questions about additional property interests and the status of the transferred contracts.
What We Found
- New entities appeared just before the dispute escalated. In the [eight months] before the dispute escalated, the company’s directors set up two new entities.
- Assets and business were moved into them. Equipment, a site lease and the rights to [two] active project contracts were transferred to the new companies.
- The business hadn’t stopped trading. The new entities operated from the same premises and used much of the same workforce.
- Control hadn’t changed. Through family members and nominee shareholders, both entities traced back to the original promoters.
- “Nothing left” didn’t hold up. The value had not disappeared. It had moved to entities still controlled by the same people.
The Outcome
- A different strategy: The discounted settlement was declined. Counsel had a verified basis to pursue the full claim.
- Recoverable assets identified: The legal team knew which assets existed, where they were and how they had moved.
- Grounds for further legal action: The documented transfer timeline gave counsel a factual basis to consider interim relief and to challenge the asset transfers.
- A stronger negotiating position: Once the other side’s position was tested against verified facts, the terms of the discussion changed. [Optional: The matter was later settled at [X%] of the original claim.]
“There’s nothing left” is a position, not a fact, until someone checks. In litigation, the account that holds up is usually the one built on facts verified before the case depends on them.