Commercial litigation

A software company suspected one of its former employees and shareholders of having established a competing business which was allegedly engaging in various unfair competition practices, including employee poaching, free-riding, disparagement, disruption of its business and infringement of its software.

At that stage, the company did not have sufficient evidence to conclusively establish these alleged practices and bring substantive proceedings against its competitor.

Our team therefore obtained court-authorised evidence-gathering measures under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to obtain or preserve evidence before substantive proceedings are commenced. These measures were carried out at the competitor’s premises and resulted in the collection of both hard-copy and electronic documents and data relevant to the suspected misconduct.

Based on the evidence obtained, the firm subsequently initiated proceedings on the merits against the competing company before the competent Commercial Court, seeking an order requiring it to immediately cease the disputed practices, subject to a daily penalty payment for non-compliance, and compensation for the financial losses resulting from the loss of customers and market share, as well as for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by our client.

The firm also brought claims against the founder of the competing company in his personal capacity for breaches of his non-compete obligations.

To substantiate and quantify our client’s financial losses, the firm instructed independent financial experts to conduct a market analysis of the software sector in which both companies operated.

A leading industrial tools company terminated its contractual relationship with our client, a major communications and marketing group, without any prior notice, despite the parties having maintained a well-established commercial relationship for nearly six years.

As a result of the abrupt termination, our client was given no opportunity to reorganise its operations, notwithstanding the significant resources it had committed to the performance of the contract, including a dedicated team of 26 employees and approximately ten leased vehicles.

Following unsuccessful attempts to reach an amicable settlement, the firm initiated proceedings before the competent Commercial Court, seeking compensation for the losses suffered by our client as a result of the abrupt termination of an established commercial relationship.

In support of its claims, the firm argued, principally, that the industrial tools company had failed to comply with the termination provisions of the fixed-term agreement, which should therefore have remained in force until its contractual expiry date.

In the alternative, the firm argued that the relationship had been terminated without any notice period, whereas, given the nearly six-year duration of the parties’ commercial relationship, our client was entitled to at least eight months’ prior notice under the applicable French case law.

The firm further sought recovery of the costs incurred by our client as a direct consequence of the termination, including the costs associated with the dismissal and redeployment of employees assigned to the contract and the early termination of leases relating to vehicles dedicated to its performance.

To substantiate the loss of profit resulting from the termination, the firm prepared a detailed financial assessment based on the monthly contribution margin generated by our client from its relationship with the industrial tools company, in accordance with the methodology established under French law and case law. Our team also produced detailed supporting evidence quantifying the restructuring and termination costs incurred, including employee dismissal and redeployment costs and charges arising from the early termination of the vehicle leases.

Finally, the firm sought compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by our client as a result of the particularly sudden and disruptive manner in which the contractual relationship was terminated.

Our client, a manufacturer of construction materials, supplied a number of components to a main contractor in connection with a major construction project carried out for a leading railway operator.

During the performance of the contract, concerns arose as to whether the components supplied complied with the safety standards applicable to this type of project. On that basis, the main contractor refused to pay the purchase price, amounting to several million euros, despite the fact that the parties’ agreement did not expressly require the components to comply with the safety standard in question.

The firm initiated two sets of proceedings against the main contractor, including urgent interim proceedings and proceedings on the merits, seeking payment of the outstanding purchase price at the earliest possible stage, together with late-payment interest and damages in respect of anticipated future orders that were lost as a result of the dispute.

Our team also represented a software company that had developed a platform dedicated to commercial transactions involving NFTs. In connection with the development of its project, our client engaged a consulting firm to advise on its legal, strategic and financial structuring.

Several recommendations provided by the consulting firm subsequently proved to be inaccurate and unlawful, causing significant losses to our client.

The firm initiated proceedings on the merits against the consulting firm, seeking compensation for the financial and reputational harm suffered by our client, as well as reimbursement of the fees paid for the advisory services concerned.

Our client, a fashion company specialising in ready-to-wear clothing, was accused by several online users of engaging in dropshipping practices through reviews posted on an online review platform.

These allegations had an immediate impact on the company’s international expansion, as prospective foreign distributors became unwilling to enter into commercial relationships for the distribution and resale of its products.

The platform refused to remove the publicly available reviews, despite our client providing extensive evidence demonstrating that it worked with its own suppliers, which manufactured its clothing in accordance with detailed specifications, and that it did not engage in the dropshipping practices of which it had been accused. There were also grounds to suspect that some of the reviews may have been posted by competitors seeking to harm the company’s reputation.

The firm initiated urgent interim proceedings against the platform before the President of the Commercial Court, seeking an order requiring the immediate removal of the disputed reviews, subject to a daily penalty payment for any delay, as well as the removal of any similar reviews subsequently published on the platform.

The firm represented a German company in a cross-border dispute with a French company arising out of the performance of an automotive equipment supply agreement.

During the course of the contractual relationship, it became apparent that the original contractual terms needed to be renegotiated to address the parties’ financial and cash-flow constraints.

The firm advised and represented its client in proceedings before the Paris Economic Activities Court, while also assisting with the parallel settlement negotiations conducted between the parties.