A distributor of a European crop protection products manufacturer had worked for many years under exclusive terms in Kazakhstan. After securing its own product registrations, the distributor switched suppliers and began purchasing similar materials from China. To avoid paying for the final $7M shipment, the distributor filed a legal claim, alleging poor product quality. In support, it presented expert opinions and farm reports claiming that the products did not meet declared specifications.

The situation required immediate action. A prolonged court process risked asset concealment, reputational damage, and loss of control over the debt recovery process.

It was necessary to simultaneously refute the evidence presented, minimize litigation risks, and strengthen the client’s negotiating position, ensuring the recovery of the debt within a short timeframe.

‍

1. Establish the hidden connection between the distributor and the farms that issued negative reports, despite the absence of direct corporate affiliation.

2. Prove that the distributor’s crop protection product registrations had been obtained in violation of regulations and use this fact to restrict its market activity.

3. Secure priority consideration of the client’s counterclaims for debt recovery, minimising the risk of procedural delays.

‍

The Anahata Solutions team applied a coordinated strategy integrating legal, financial, and reputational assessments.

KEY STEPS

1. Conducted an investigation of corporate registries, financial statements, historical registration records, and ownership chains, which confirmed hidden affiliations between the farms and the distributor.

2. Commissioned an independent expert review, which identified methodological breaches in the original studies, leading to the exclusion of the reports from admissible evidence.

3. Identified violations in the process of obtaining crop protection product registrations, creating both legal and commercial risks for the distributor and enabling measures to restrict its import activities.

4. Engaged with the distributor’s Chinese suppliers to apply commercial pressure by demonstrating its unreliable financial standing.

‍

The analysis of transactions revealed the distributor’s actual control over the farms that had prepared the negative reports. The examination of contractual and customs data made it possible to trace the supply chain and identify critical risks in the opponent’s business model.