One of the distributor’s core arguments was a set of reports from agricultural enterprises claiming the product didn’t meet declared specifications. These reports formed the basis of the lawsuit and became a tool for media pressure. The challenge: formally, these farms had no apparent ties to the distributor — making the conflict of interest difficult to prove.

Through Data Research, we examined ownership records, financial filings, corporate structures, and registration histories. The analysis revealed hidden affiliations between the distributor and the farms. Shared ownership, overlapping financial flows, and interlinked management boards — the mosaic came together to reveal a network of controlled entities. What had been presented as independent evaluations were, in fact, fabricated internal documents.

Simultaneously, our Expert Opinion provided an independent assessment of the admissibility and credibility of these reports. Agronomic and procedural analysis uncovered severe methodological flaws: the studies were biased, violated basic research protocols, and did not meet regulatory standards. As a result, the court ruled the reports inadmissible — collapsing the distributor’s main legal argument.

In this case, our work achieved the following:

—  Identified hidden risks behind the formal process;

—  Delivered a legally sound analysis of evidence admissibility;

—  Exposed links between entities masquerading as independent;

—  Built a foundation for proactive action — not just legal defense.

This approach is especially effective in cases where parties manipulate information, exploiting weak local regulations or gaps in public data availability.

Beyond neutralizing the lawsuit, we developed a broader strategy to secure debt recovery. Additional Data Research uncovered procedural violations in how the distributor had obtained pesticide registrations — including false declarations. This enabled the client to initiate regulatory reviews and block the import of substitute products.

The move had a dual effect: legally, it strengthened the client's position; reputationally, it signaled to partners and regulators that the client was capable of decisive strategic action. Further pressure was applied through informal engagement with Chinese suppliers, who were alerted to the distributor’s financial instability.

This strategy works best when:

—  The case unfolds across multiple jurisdictions;

—  What’s needed is not just legal advice, but insight into asset structures and affiliations;

—  The goal is not just defense, but behavioral impact on the counterparty;

—  The client’s team needs fast, targeted analytical input for decision-making.

The combination of analytics, legal expertise, and strategic action forced the distributor to withdraw the lawsuit. More importantly, it enabled a negotiated debt recovery — avoiding a protracted legal battle. The manufacturer preserved financial stability and maintained its reputation as a reliable partner in the region.

This case illustrates how critical data and analytics can turn an asymmetric conflict into a controlled scenario. By uncovering hidden connections and discrediting fabricated evidence, the client regained control — and transformed a potentially dangerous situation into a favorable outcome.

In complex cross-border disputes, information isn’t just power. It’s structure, strategy — and leverage.