Practice

Where the claim meets the proof behind it.

A single legal problem, applied across different sectors: a company answers for a claim whose proof sits in a body of records that may not support it. The commodity changes, the buyer changes, the regime changes, the analysis does not.

Proprietary international methodology

The five lines of analysis

Architecture of the claim

What the company asserts, where it is written, website, contract, report, certificate, and the chain linking the assertion to the record supporting it.

Origin and custody

Where each piece of information comes from, who entered it, what guarantees it was not altered, and what remains available if the system or supplier changes.

Contracts at origin

Authorisation of use for the actual purpose, liability for incorrect information, and what happens to the record when the relationship ends.

Liability across the chain

Who answers to buyer, auditor and regulator, and where risk has been assumed with no contractual counterpart.

Personal exposure

Where an individual sits at the point of origin: lawful use, international transfer and retention of the record over time.

Services

Three services, one logic of protection and growth.

Projects with a beginning, a middle and an end. Scope stated in writing, defined timeline and fixed fee, agreed before work begins.

Soundness Diagnosis

We run the five lines of the methodology across your actual operation. We gather everything the company asserts publicly and in contract, trace each assertion back to the origin of the information, read the contracts signed with producers and partners, examine how the record is kept and what becomes of it when a system changes, and map who answers for each link. You receive a report with findings graded by risk, a prioritised remediation plan and a presentation session with your team.

3 to 4 weeks

Structuring

We carry out the remediation the diagnosis identified. We redraft the contracts at origin so they authorise the commercial use the company actually makes of the information, write the allocation of liability among platform, project, certifier and producer, and set the retention rules so the record survives changes of system, supplier and ownership. We deliver drafts ready for negotiation and support implementation.

4 to 6 weeks

Independent opinion

We produce the third-party assessment a company cannot issue about itself. We analyse the claim against the applicable regime, the foundation supporting it and the contractual chain, and issue a reasoned opinion on the soundness of the whole. It serves the investor in diligence, the buyer who needs assurance before signing, and the company itself seeking to present the market with a demonstration signed by someone with no stake in the outcome.

2 to 3 weeks

Boundaries

What this work is, and what it is not

There are good providers for each piece of this problem. What is usually missing is someone to connect the pieces. The boundaries are worth stating.

It does not replace in-house counsel

Someone handling contracts, corporate, employment and tax matters in the same week has no room to go deep on a new and specific requirement, nor should they. There is also a structural limit: an analysis produced internally does not serve as proof before a third party raising the challenge.

It is not environmental or agricultural law

Permitting, land regularisation, the Forest Code, rural contracts and tax matters belong on another shelf, with good specialists. Here the analysis bears on the information supporting the claim made to the market, not on the asset or the land itself.

It is not traceability consulting

Those who build and sell the monitoring system deliver technical evidence, and usually do so well. Whether that evidence withstands legal challenge, who answers if the information is wrong, and whether the contract at origin authorised that use are separate questions. The provider's own contract is often one of the documents to review.

It is not generic regulatory compliance

A standardised report that never mentions the company's commercial claim does not answer the question the buyer will ask.

Each of these providers does its own piece well, and none of them is wrong in what it does. A challenge, however, almost never lands inside one piece, it lands in the space between them. Connecting the claim, the records that support it and each party's share of liability, so that the whole holds together as one: that link is what this work provides.

Position

Independence is what gives the opinion its value

I do not act for issuance platforms or for intermediaries of the asset. The refusal is deliberate: an opinion is only worth something if the person signing it has no stake in the outcome.