An enforcement strategy report answers one question for a judgment holder whose debtor moved assets abroad: whether the judgment or the arbitral award can realistically be turned into cash in that country, and by which route. We deliver the report before a mandate is opened, so the creditor decides with the real constraints already in view rather than after the cost is spent.
The report is built from public registers, court and insolvency filings, and licensed corporate databases in the country where the debtor now holds assets. Legal research and corporate intelligence from public and licensed sources sit behind every conclusion the report contains.
Where recognition depends on a treaty or a regulation, we identify the instrument by name rather than describe it in general terms – the New York Convention 1958 for arbitral awards, or Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, known as Brussels I Recast, where the judgment originates in a member state. We state which instrument applies and how it shapes the route before it shapes the price.
None of this is presented as certain in advance of the check. A register entry can be out of date, and a filing can be pending; the report says where a fact is confirmed and where it is a working assumption still to be tested.
The work opens with the judgment, the arbitral award, or the underlying contract, together with whatever the creditor already knows about the debtor's assets. From that starting point we identify the country or countries where enforcement looks realistic and set the scope of the report accordingly.
Where the creditor's own information on the debtor is thin, the work can start instead from a corporate intelligence report ordered separately, so the enforcement strategy report is built on verified corporate facts rather than on assumptions carried over from the original contract dispute.
The finished report sets out the route, the obstacles, and the recommendation in a form the creditor can put in front of a board, an insurer, or a co-creditor without further explanation. It is written to be read once and acted on, not filed.
The report is billed as a fixed product, and the fee basis is confirmed in writing before we start. It does not depend on the outcome of any later enforcement step, and it is payable whether or not the recommendation is to proceed.
If the creditor goes on to instruct SOLUTIO for the enforcement mandate the report describes, the report fee is credited in full against the first invoice of that mandate. If the creditor takes the report to a different route, or takes no further action, nothing further is owed under this engagement.
Turnaround is fixed and confirmed in writing before we start, rather than given as a general estimate. Most reports are delivered within a short, defined window once the judgment, the award, or the underlying contract is in hand.
No. The report sets out the route and the recommendation. Enforcement measures such as seizure or garnishment follow only under a separate mandate, once the creditor has decided to proceed on the basis of the report.
Yes. If the creditor instructs SOLUTIO to run the enforcement mandate the report describes, the report fee is credited in full against the first invoice of that mandate rather than charged twice.
A judgment that sits unenforced does not gain value while it waits. Assets move, other creditors file first, and a debtor's balance sheet can empty well before a claimant has decided which country to act in. The report exists to settle that decision while the assets it describes are still there to reach.