At the end of 2019, a long-term client of mine approached me, asking if I would play the role of mediator between him and another shareholder of a business group operating in the field of distribution of heating oils, gas and primarily heat. The paradox was that this request came at a time when I was intensively considering whether to expand our portfolio of services to include mediation or wider ADR (alternative dispute resolution), i.e. out-of-court dispute resolution. It was on the basis of this request that I subsequently became acquainted with and was trained in this area.
This client expected several things from me: mainly that I determine the value of the entire business group, then suggest possible ways of settlement and help him implement the chosen method, including coordination of the activities of the legal representatives of both parties. I was happy to accept the case. It comprised areas in which we felt strong, such as understanding and evaluation of the problem, communication, and management of legal teams. However, I informed both the disputing partners that they had to consider whether they could really trust my judgment as I had already been cooperating with one of them for many years, although this would in no way impact my neutrality. During my ADR training, I found out that mediation based on the professional view of the mediator has a name: ‘expert ADR’. I have to admit that mediation in which I can give my view of the problem to the parties to the dispute is much more appealing to me than conventional mediation, where the mediator is not allowed to express himself / herself about the substance of the dispute, let alone recommend a solution.
In this case, the first phase included a valuation of the business group (approximately CZK 40 million), after which I proposed several possibilities for its division. However, one of the disputing shareholders surprised me by proposing a completely different form of settlement. This form seemed disadvantageous to that shareholder, and I repeatedly informed him of this. However, despite this information, the shareholder enforced the solution he proposed and the other shareholder gladly accepted it. After all, what is disadvantageous for one is often advantageous for the other.
What really surprised me in this case was how quickly everything resulted in the signing of contracts. I started working on the case before Christmas 2019, and the contracts were signed shortly after Easter 2020. I think this is a particularly good result, as it involved the valuation of a group of companies with relatively complicated business plans, negotiations, and the drafting and signing of contracts. Of course, some minor troubles arose after the signing of the actual division of the business, however it seems that, in the end, both shareholders are running their new companies in order and without any conflicts, and I believe they both have a chance to be successful in the long term.
