Cross-Border Concession Liability
Lawyers needed to reconstruct how infrastructure concessions had been secured across several jurisdictions, including places where registries had collapsed. Reporting established recurring arrangements involving intermediaries, operating payments and concealed ownership. The engagement produced materials structured for use in proceedings.
Lawyers in cross-border infrastructure disputes required admissible evidence of how concessions had been secured, and at what cost, across several jurisdictions. Registries had collapsed in some countries.
In one country, a family account collected contributions from dozens of companies as the price of operating. Agreements were signed in palace chambers. In another, the regulator who approved licences fled when the government fell. In a third, shares had been issued to intermediaries fronting for the ruling family; when alignments shifted, the facilitators were removed and the assets reverted to the state. In a fourth, partnership with customs enabled monopoly access and documentation for phantom shipments that never crossed the border. The same mechanism recurred across jurisdictions: local partnership concealing presidential family ownership.
The engagement produced materials structured for use in proceedings.
The mandates below are drawn from hundreds of engagements over fifteen years, including work predating Periplus. Specific parties, jurisdictions and instructing firms are protected by confidentiality.