Victim of fraud? We clarify what happened and find the evidence you need to enforce your claim for damages!

Creative forensic reconstruction leads to success!

In order to enforce claims for damages or criminal prosecution, the damage, the perpetrator, the cause of the damage, and the fault must be known and proven.

Here are some creative examples:

EXAMPLE 1: David vs. Goliath: Medium-sized company wins against large corporation

Within three days, our client receives completely unexpected notices of termination with immediate effect from two large corporations for its largest goods distribution contracts.

Challenge:

• There are no written framework agreements.
• The corporations and their employees dispute any prerequisite for reasonable longer notice periods.
• They justify the immediate terminations with “serious performance deficiencies.”

Our solution:

• Our extensive research reveals the true motive for the termination, namely that the joint distribution of goods by the two competing corporations may have violated EU competition rules; the Federal Competition Authority had decided to investigate.
• With a bit of luck, we even obtain excerpts from an opposing quality management manual and prove that our client was the only accredited distributor!
• In cross-examination, witnesses for the opposing side finally had to admit that their employees
  • had demanded millions in advance payments from our client, as proven in court, and
  • had themselves produced the distribution deficiencies of which our client was accused.

Result: Damages for reasonable 1-year notice period

 

EXAMPLE 2: No money for years of legal disputes against a financially strong opponent

The building authority approved a large-scale construction project. Nearly one hundred neighbors raised objections on the grounds that their subjective neighbor rights would be inf-ringed upon—without success. Now, this building permit was to be challenged with the help of a lawyer.

Challenge:

• The neighbors had argued that this building permit would allow far more residential space than was legally permissible. Even though their arguments seemed convincing, the outcome of this legal dispute remained uncertain because there was no supreme court ruling on the key legal issue at stake.
• The opposing real estate developer had threatened the neighbors with claims for damages amounting to millions if they continued to delay the start of construction through “wilful appeals.” As a result, only a few neighbors dared to challenge the building permit.
• The judge in the second instance indicated that he might follow the neighbors’ legal opinion. Nevertheless, even among the few remaining neighbors, the willingness to continue investing money and time in this costly legal battle waned over time.
• The opponent was a financially strong real estate company whose managing director left no doubt that he would pursue this legal battle through all instances.
• We therefore had to find new arguments to reach an acceptable settlement.

Reconstruction:

• The extensive file of the building authority of the first instance revealed how the opposing building applicant had behaved in an almost commanding manner toward the responsible official in the building proceedings of the first instance. The official had initially rejected the application for approval, but ultimately granted it after insignificant changes to the project.
• The contract under which the opposing building applicant had acquired this former industrial site documented extensive soil contamination. Even before the building permit was granted, the developer had demolished the old buildings and excavated a huge construction pit. This removed a large part of the contaminated soil. He had also hastily erected the foundation slab in the excavation pit, sealing off any remaining contaminated soil from precipitation.
• We were then even able to obtain evidence of unusual interventions by third parties in favor of the building permit in the first instance proceedings.
• Our reconstruction revealed a clear link between the remediation of contaminated sites, which was in the public interest, and the building permit in question, with which the authorities wanted to grant the remediator far more residential space than would have been permissible under the zoning plan.
• The public interest in the remediation of contaminated sites was, of course, not a legally recognized reason for exceeding the legal zoning and building restrictions.

Result: With these reconstruction results, a favorable settlement was quickly negotiated with the opposing party. The building applicant reduced the expansion of the residential floor space and paid an appropriately high compensation payment for all damages to the neighbors.

 

More examples here in the coming weeks!

OUR EXPERTISE

• Decades of experience in complex cases
• Tenacity and attention to detail
• Creativity in presenting evidence

Contact us if you need help!

Your attorney Dr. Markus Frank, LLM

• www.frank-law.at
• mail: office@frank-law.at
• mobile: 06765347060