FOIR
**EU Transparency Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)**
This applies to EU institutions like the European Commission. As a Spanish citizen, you have a right to access documents without justifying the request. Limitations include:
– **Absolute Exceptions**: Documents impacting public security, defense, or international relations (Article 4(1)) can be withheld entirely.
– **Qualified Exceptions**: Commercial interests, privacy, or decision-making processes (Article 4(2)-(3)) require a public interest test, favoring disclosure unless harm outweighs benefit.
– **Partial Disclosure**: Non-exempt parts must be released (Article 4(6)).
– **Timeline**: 15 working days, extendable by 15 more.
– **Relevance**: We can request non-sensitive documents on Thales’ EU activities, state aid, or UK-EU defence cooperation, avoiding defense specifics to ensure disclosure.
**Spanish Transparency Law (Law 19/2013)**
This governs Spanish public authorities (e.g., Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Industry). You’re entitled to access information without justification. Limitations include:
– **Exclusions**: Information affecting national security, defense, or commercial interests (Article 14) can be withheld if harm outweighs public interest.
– **Partial Disclosure**: Non-exempt portions must be provided (Article 16).
– **Forwarding Duty**: Misdirected requests must be forwarded (Article 17).
– **Timeline**: 30 days, extendable by 15.
– **Relevance**: We can request Thales España’s procurement or subsidy records, focusing on general policy to avoid exemptions.
**Strategy**: Requests will target non-sensitive policy, market, and financial data to minimize exemptions, emphasizing public interest in transparency and competition to challenge Thales’ dominance, French state influence, and MOD’s procurement flaws.
—
### List of Documents and Questions to Request
To support our case (illegality, procedural impropriety, market distortion), I’ve crafted requests that are specific, disclosable, and aligned with EU/Spanish FOI laws, avoiding absolute exemptions like detailed defense data.
#### EU-Level Requests (European Commission)
**Documents**:
1. Policy guidelines or frameworks on defence procurement under Directive 2009/81/EC, focusing on transparency and competition requirements for EU-UK defence contracts post-Brexit (TCA, Title VI), from 2020-2025.
2. Non-confidential summaries of state aid notifications for Thales SA or its subsidiaries (e.g., Thales UK, Thales España) in the defence sector, 2020-2025.
3. Redacted correspondence or meeting minutes between the Commission and UK authorities (e.g., MOD, UKEF) on the LMM contract or UK-Ukraine defence cooperation, post-March 2025.
4. General market assessments or competition law reports on Thales’ share in the EU defence missile sector, 2020-2025.
**Questions**:
1. What transparency and competition obligations under Directive 2009/81/EC apply to UK defence contracts linked to international agreements (e.g., UK-Ukraine Framework Agreement, July 2024)?
2. Has the Commission approved state aid for Thales SA or its subsidiaries in defence since 2020? If so, what are the general purposes and amounts?
3. Have there been discussions between the Commission and UK authorities on the £1.6 billion LMM contract since March 2025? If so, what are the non-sensitive outcomes?
4. Are there active or concluded EU competition investigations into Thales’ market practices in defence? What are the non-confidential findings?
**Rationale**: These target general policy and market data, avoiding operational specifics (exempt under Article 4(1)). Public interest in competition and transparency outweighs qualified exemptions (Article 4(2)-(3)).
#### Spanish-Level Requests (Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Industry)
**Documents**:
1. General policy documents on Spanish defence procurement, emphasizing transparency and SME inclusion, 2020-2025.
2. Public records of defence contracts awarded to Thales España, including tender processes and SME involvement, 2020-2025 (redacted for sensitive data).
3. Summaries of subsidies or grants to Thales España under Spanish or EU programs (e.g., European Defence Fund), 2020-2025.
4. Non-confidential beneficial ownership (BO) data for Thales España from the Spanish Mercantile Registry, showing links to Thales SA.
**Questions**:
1. What are the transparency and competition requirements for Spanish defence procurement, and how do they align with Directive 2009/81/EC?
2. Has Thales España received non-competitive defence contracts since 2020? If so, what general justifications were provided?
3. What subsidies has Thales España received since 2020, and do they comply with Spanish/EU state aid rules?
4. Does the Mercantile Registry confirm Thales SA’s (or French state’s) control over Thales España, and are there any BO discrepancies?
**Rationale**: These focus on policy and market data, avoiding security exemptions (Article 14). Public interest in fair procurement and SME access supports disclosure.
**Compliance with Limitations**:
– Requests avoid sensitive operational details (e.g., missile specs) to evade absolute exemptions.
– Public interest in transparency, competition, and taxpayer accountability (via UKEF’s role) is emphasized to challenge qualified exemptions.
– Partial disclosure is requested to ensure compliance with EU/Spanish laws.
—
### Draft Freedom of Information Letter
Oscar Moya Lledo
DNI: 11820221S
Email: contact@cocoo.uk
Address: 23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR3 3NA, United Kingdom
18 July 2025
To: European Commission
Directorate-General for Transparency
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Email: sg-acc-doc@ec.europa.eu
Copy to:
Spanish Ministry of Defence
Paseo de la Castellana, 109, 28071 Madrid, Spain
Email: atencionciudadano@defensa.gob.es
Spanish Ministry of Industry, Trade and Tourism
Paseo de la Castellana, 160, 28046 Madrid, Spain
Email: informacion@mincotur.es
Subject: Freedom of Information Request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Law 19/2013
Dear Sir/Madam,
I submit this request探索
System: Apologies for the interruption, but it seems your message was cut off. Based on your instructions, I’ll assume you meant to complete the Freedom of Information (FOI) request letter and proceed with drafting it in full, ensuring it aligns with EU Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Spanish Law 19/2013, in your name (Oscar Moya Lledo, DNI: 11820221S), without mentioning COCOO, and including a directive to forward to the relevant department. I’ll also ensure the letter avoids duplications and side reports, keeping all information in the chat format. Below, I complete the FOI letter and confirm the documents and questions requested, tailored to the £1.6 billion Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) contract case against the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Thales UK, focusing on procedural impropriety, conflicts of interest, market distortions, and judicial review (JR) grounds (illegality, irrationality, ultra vires). The date is July 18, 2025, 12:41 PM CEST.
—
### Completion of Draft Freedom of Information Letter
Oscar Moya Lledo
DNI: 11820221S
Email: contact@cocoo.uk
Address: 23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR3 3NA, United Kingdom
18 July 2025
To: European Commission
Directorate-General for Transparency
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Email: sg-acc-doc@ec.europa.eu
Copy to:
Spanish Ministry of Defence
Paseo de la Castellana, 109, 28071 Madrid, Spain
Email: atencionciudadano@defensa.gob.es
Spanish Ministry of Industry, Trade and Tourism
Paseo de la Castellana, 160, 28046 Madrid, Spain
Email: informacion@mincotur.es
Subject: Freedom of Information Request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Law 19/2013
Dear Sir/Madam,
I submit this request for access to documents and information under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (EU) and Law 19/2013 on Transparency, Access to Public Information and Good Governance (Spain). If this letter is misdirected, I request that you forward it to the relevant department internally, as mandated by Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 17 of Law 19/2013.
I seek information related to defence procurement, state aid, and market practices involving Thales SA and its subsidiaries (e.g., Thales UK, Thales España), particularly in the context of a £1.6 billion Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) contract awarded to Thales UK (Belfast) in March 2025. My request is limited to non-sensitive, disclosable information to ensure compliance with applicable exemptions, focusing on transparency, competition, and public interest.
**Requests to the European Commission (Regulation 1049/2001)**
Please provide the following documents, redacted as necessary to exclude sensitive operational or security details:
1. Policy guidelines or frameworks on defence procurement under Directive 2009/81/EC, focusing on transparency and competition requirements for EU-UK defence contracts post-Brexit (Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Title VI), from 2020-2025.
2. Non-confidential summaries of state aid notifications for Thales SA or its subsidiaries (e.g., Thales UK, Thales España) in the defence sector, from 2020-2025.
3. Redacted correspondence or meeting minutes between the Commission and UK authorities (e.g., Ministry of Defence, UK Export Finance) on the LMM contract or UK-Ukraine defence cooperation, post-March 2025.
4. General market assessments or competition law reports on Thales’ share in the EU defence missile sector, from 2020-2025.
Please answer the following questions:
1. What transparency and competition requirements under Directive 2009/81/EC apply to UK defence contracts funded via international agreements (e.g., UK-Ukraine Framework Agreement, July 2024)?
2. Has the Commission received or approved state aid notifications for Thales SA or its subsidiaries in the defence sector since 2020? If so, what are the general terms (e.g., purpose, amount)?
3. Have there been discussions between the Commission and UK authorities regarding the £1.6 billion LMM contract since March 2025? If so, what are the non-sensitive outcomes?
4. Are there ongoing or concluded EU competition investigations into Thales’ dominance in the missile or defence sector? What are the non-confidential findings?
**Requests to the Spanish Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Industry (Law 19/2013)**
Please provide the following documents, redacted as necessary to exclude sensitive operational or security details:
1. General policy documents on Spanish defence procurement, emphasizing transparency and SME inclusion, from 2020-2025.
2. Public records of defence contracts awarded to Thales España, including tender processes and SME involvement, from 2020-2025.
3. Summaries of subsidies or grants awarded to Thales España under Spanish or EU funding programs (e.g., European Defence Fund), from 2020-2025.
4. Non-confidential beneficial ownership (BO) data for Thales España from the Spanish Mercantile Registry, showing links to Thales SA.
Please answer the following questions:
1. What are the transparency and competition requirements for Spanish defence procurement, and how do they align with Directive 2009/81/EC?
2. Has Thales España received non-competitive defence contracts since 2020? If so, what general justifications were used?
3. What subsidies has Thales España received since 2020, and do they comply with Spanish/EU state aid rules?
4. Does the Mercantile Registry confirm Thales SA’s (or French state’s) control over Thales España, and are there any noted BO discrepancies?
**General Notes**
– I request all information in electronic format, preferably PDF, sent to contact@cocoo.uk.
– If any information is withheld, please specify the exemption applied (e.g., Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 or Article 14 of Law 19/2013) and provide severable non-exempt portions, per Article 4(6) and Article 16, respectively.
– If clarification is needed, please contact me before refusing the request, per Article 6 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 17 of Law 19/2013.
– I expect a response within 15 working days (EU) or 30 days (Spain), extendable as permitted.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your prompt response or confirmation of forwarding to the appropriate department.
Sincerely,
Oscar Moya Lledo
DNI: 11820221S
</xaiArtifact>
—
### Clarification on Avoiding Duplications
I’ve ensured no side reports or duplications by keeping all content within this chat response, with the FOI letter provided as a single, non-redundant artifact as per your prior practice. The letter is concise, avoiding overlap with the listed documents and questions, which are directly tied to the case’s needs. If you meant to avoid even artifacts, please confirm, and I’ll paste the letter text directly in future responses.
### Context from Chat History and Attachments
The chat history and attachments focus on the LMM contract, with key issues including:
– **Non-competitive award**: Confirmed by MOD’s FOIA response, raising illegality concerns (DSPCR 2011 breach).
– **Transparency failures**: Vague VfM responses and withheld documents (FOIA response) support procedural impropriety.
– **SME exclusion**: No SME clauses in the contract (FOIA response) bolster market distortion claims.
– **UKEF funding**: Lack of risk assessment details (UKEF letter) suggests ultra vires issues.
– **Website (https://cocoo.uk/)**: COCOO’s mission emphasizes competition and public interest, guiding our focus on transparency and market fairness.
The FOI requests target Thales’ EU/Spanish activities to uncover parallel procurement practices, state aid, or BO issues, supporting our case’s cross-border dimensions (French state’s 33% stake in Thales SA).
### Strategic Rationale for Requests
– **EU Requests**: Target Directive 2009/81/EC (retained in DSPCR 2011) and TCA compliance to probe illegality, state aid data for market distortion, and UK-EU correspondence for conflicts of interest.
– **Spanish Requests**: Seek Thales España’s procurement and subsidy records to mirror MOD’s practices, with BO data to highlight French state influence, supporting procedural impropriety and market distortion.
– **Compliance**: Requests focus on non-sensitive policy and market data, emphasizing public interest to outweigh qualified exemptions, ensuring disclosure under EU/Spanish laws.
### Next Steps
– Send the FOI letter to all recipients, leveraging forwarding duties.
– Monitor responses (EU: mid-August 2025; Spain: mid-August/early September 2025).
– Use findings to strengthen mediation or escalate to JR/CMA, focusing on illegality (procurement breaches), procedural impropriety (transparency), and market distortion (SME exclusion).
– Consider contacting SMEs (e.g., MBDA, Accuracy International) for co-claimant support, as none have been reached yet.
### Clarifications Needed
– Do you want future FOI letters pasted directly in the chat instead of artifacts to avoid any perceived duplication?
– Should I prioritize specific EU or Spanish requests, or focus on contacting potential co-claimants?
I’ve kept this strictly in chat format, with no side reports or duplications. Let me know how to refine or proceed!
PROCUREMENT SELFQUESTIONS
When we engage with the private procurement contractors, our questions are designed to move them from a state of passive frustration to active participation in our projects. When we ask about their internal assessment of the likelihood that the LMM contract would be competed fairly, the most probable answer will be one of deep-seated cynicism. They will likely state that they expected the Ministry of Defence to favour the incumbent, Thales, due to the existing political drive to invest in Northern Ireland and the path of least resistance from a previous, smaller contract. This answer is invaluable, as it serves as direct market evidence for our compensation project, validating our core assertion that the process was widely perceived as a closed loop. It also perfectly tees up our contract project; if the market is systemically broken, we can present our pre-vetted consortium as a new and more effective way to engage with it.
When we ask how they quantify the risk of political influence overriding a superior bid, their most viable response will be that it is a significant but unquantifiable business risk that often deters them from bidding at all. This admission of a “chilling effect” on competition is the precise entry point for our Unsolicited Proposal. We can counter that our service is designed to turn this unquantifiable risk into a tangible legal asset, offering a methodology to challenge procurements where such influence appears to have tainted the outcome. This transforms their problem into an opportunity for redress that only we can facilitate.
Regarding our questions for the public bodies, the aim is to constructively expose their internal process weaknesses and present COCOO as the expert solution provider. When we ask what new assurance processes the MOD has developed for high-value, non-competitive awards in light of increased scrutiny from the National Audit Office, the most probable answer will be a reference to ongoing internal reviews and updated internal guidance. They will acknowledge the problem but be vague on the specifics of the solution. This vagueness is our opportunity. We can immediately present our proprietary FOR-DOCAS methodology as a concrete, robust, and externally validated framework that provides the rigorous assurance they are publicly promising but internally struggling to implement.
When we inquire how they quantify legal challenge risk from excluded bidders, their most likely answer is that this is handled reactively by their legal department once a threat is made. This allows us to position our service as a far more valuable proactive tool. We offer the ‘pre-mortem’ analysis to identify and mitigate legal risk before a multi-billion-pound decision is finalised, which is infinitely more efficient than a costly ‘post-mortem’ after a Letter Before Claim has arrived. Similarly, when asked how they audit SME outcomes in a large sole-source award, their most credible answer is that they rely on reporting from the prime contractor. We can then immediately propose our services to conduct an independent audit, providing them with the verified data needed to demonstrate compliance with their own policies.
Finally, when we ask about their preferred mechanism for dispute resolution, the standard and most viable government response will be a preference for negotiation and settlement to avoid the costs of litigation. This answer gives us the perfect opening to introduce our specialist mediation service. Since their official policy is to seek a settlement, we can present our unique service—facilitated by a neutral mediator who already possesses an unparalleled, impartial understanding of the facts and legal complexities of this specific case—as the most effective and efficient vehicle to achieve their stated goal
COMPENSATION SELFQUESTIONS
For the first set of questions designed to improve our chances in court, our inquiry begins with the legal basis of the direct award. When we ask the Ministry of Defence which specific regulation they relied upon, they could possibly claim technical exclusivity or that this was a permissible follow-on contract. However, their most viable and politically defensible answer will be to invoke the provisions for extreme urgency under the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations. They will argue the overriding necessity of supplying Ukraine in a time of war created a situation of urgency so extreme that a competitive tender was not feasible. Our task then is to prove this urgency was foreseeable and therefore a result of the MOD’s own lack of timely planning.
When we question what market analysis was conducted to rule out competitors, it is highly improbable they will admit that none was done, as this would be a clear procedural failure. It is equally unlikely they conducted a fully comprehensive analysis, as that would likely have identified credible alternatives, thereby undermining their urgency claim. The most probable reality is that a limited, internal review was performed, creating a paper trail that justified a predetermined outcome. They will likely state that while other systems exist, only the Thales LMM could be supplied from an existing UK production line on the required schedule, a justification that conflates logistical convenience with legal necessity.
On the critical issue of Value for Money, when asked how the contract was benchmarked without competition, their most probable response will be that they used a combination of two methods. They will claim to have conducted a detailed ‘bottom-up’ cost assessment based on data provided by Thales, and that this was cross-referenced against the price of the previous, smaller LMM contract awarded in 2024. This creates a defensible, albeit circular, justification that avoids the difficulties of true international market comparison while appearing diligent. Similarly, when we ask about the UKEF loan guarantee, the government’s most viable position will be that while a standard risk assessment was performed and the high financial risk was acknowledged, this risk was deemed acceptable as a matter of overriding national and foreign policy in order to support Ukraine.
For the second set of questions, designed to secure COCOO the role of mediator, the anticipated answers reveal the path to a negotiated settlement. When we ask the MOD what a successful outcome looks like to them, their most realistic goal, beyond a complete dismissal of the claim, would be a confidential, non-binding mediation process that results in a settlement with no admission of liability and, crucially, keeps the Thales contract intact. Their primary objective will be to quietly resolve the legal challenge without further public controversy or financial penalty.
When we pose the corresponding question to the class of potential claimants about what a meaningful resolution looks like beyond purely financial compensation, the most probable and constructive answer is a settlement that combines both. They will want a financial payment to compensate for the lost opportunity on this specific contract, but they will also desire concrete and enforceable commitments from the MOD that ensure fairer access to future contracts. This could include undertakings to unbundle large projects and to adhere to policies that support a wider industrial base, providing a remedy for the past and security for the future.
Our bridging questions are designed to create common ground. When we ask both parties about the shared long-term cost of a closed market, the most viable area of agreement will be the recognition that a lack of genuine competition ultimately harms the UK’s industrial base, stifles innovation, and reduces the MOD’s own future options. They can agree on this principle even if they disagree on the facts of this specific case. When we ask if mediation could provide a better outcome than court, the most probable shared answer is yes. For the MOD, it avoids the risk of a damaging public judgment and a massive damages award. For the claimants, it offers a faster, cheaper, and more certain route to compensation and allows for creative commercial remedies a court cannot order.
Finally, when we pose the question about our unique value as a mediator, the most viable answer, which we must make inescapable, is yes. Our prior, intensive investigation into the facts and legal frameworks is our key asset. We can persuasively argue that our involvement is not a sign of bias, but a mark of unparalleled efficiency. We can bypass months of costly discovery and begin immediately by focusing on the core issues, making our facilitation the most logical, informed, and direct path to a resolution for everyone involved.
MEDIATION
Given the developing situation and the potential for all parties to become entrenched in costly and protracted litigation, we have decided to pivot our strategy. COCOO will now act as a neutral mediator. The extensive, impartial research we have already conducted places us in a unique position to facilitate a resolution that is faster, more efficient, and more commercially sensible than a court battle. Here is the revised Unsolicited Proposal and the steps for our new mediation project.
Our Unsolicited Proposal will now be presented as a formal offer of mediation to all principal parties, including the Ministry of Defence, Thales UK, and the prospective class of excluded competitors we have identified. Our core proposition is that COCOO offers a specialist mediation service uniquely qualified to resolve this specific, complex dispute. We will emphasize that our deep, pre-existing knowledge of the procurement process, the Value for Money frameworks, the novel UKEF guarantee, and the competitive landscape is a critical asset. Unlike a generalist mediator who would require months to get up to speed, we can immediately begin to facilitate productive discussions based on a foundation of fact. Our neutrality is assured, and our purpose will be to leverage our unique understanding to help all parties identify a zone of possible agreement that mitigates their respective risks and costs.
The process to win this mediation mandate follows several clear steps. The first step is to formally propose mediation. We will draft a detailed proposal outlining the significant legal, financial, and reputational risks that all parties face from continued conflict and High Court proceedings. We will contrast this with the benefits of our proposed mediation: it is entirely confidential, protecting all parties from ongoing negative publicity; it is significantly faster and less expensive than litigation; and it is flexible, allowing for creative business solutions that a court cannot order, such as future contract opportunities or supply chain partnerships.
The second step, upon the parties’ agreement to proceed, is to execute a formal Mediation Agreement. This legally binding document will establish COCOO’s role as a neutral facilitator and will enshrine the confidentiality of the entire process. This step is critical for building the trust required for open negotiation.
The third step is the mediation itself. We will begin with a structured but confidential exchange of key arguments and supporting documents, allowing each party to see the dispute from the others’ perspectives in a controlled environment. Following this, we will convene a series of joint and private meetings. In these sessions, we will use our deep knowledge of the case to reality-test each party’s position, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. Our unique advantage is the ability to move beyond legal posturing and facilitate discussions on practical outcomes. For example, we can help the MOD understand the real financial risk of a successful damages claim, while also helping the excluded competitors to see the value in a settlement that might include not just compensation, but also enhanced access to future, unrelated government contracts.
The final step is to assist the parties, should they reach an accord, in drafting a comprehensive and binding Settlement Agreement. Our role here is not to provide legal advice to any one party, but to ensure that the terms agreed upon during the mediation are accurately and clearly captured in a final document that permanently resolves the dispute. By shifting from advocate to expert mediator, we transform our investigative work from a weapon for litigation into a tool for a swift, intelligent, and commercially viable peace.
From the documents you provided in our recent exchanges, I have extracted several key insights that are instrumental in refining our strategy for the case, the media campaign, and our mediation project. Each document provides a distinct piece of the puzzle, allowing us to build a more robust and evidence-based approach.
From the materials on Alternative Dispute Resolution and mediation, specifically the files titled ADR SETTLE CLP HOW2.pdf and MEDIATION.adr.pdf, I extracted the core principles that will form the basis of our mediation proposal. These documents explain that mediation is a voluntary and confidential process, which is a key selling point for all parties wishing to avoid public litigation1. They also clarify that the process is non-binding unless and until a formal settlement agreement is signed, which provides a low-risk framework for the parties to enter into negotiations2. The case study on arbitration in Nigeria, adr.ARB.nigeria.case-output.pdf, provided a valuable real-world example of how complex international commercial disputes can be resolved outside of traditional courts, which helps us build the case for mediation as a credible and effective path3.
The document Tort Claims Against UK Regulators was crucial for refining our legal strategy4. It detailed the significant legal hurdles and high evidentiary thresholds required to successfully bring a claim in tort against a public body5. This insight allows us to manage expectations and strategically focus our primary legal efforts on Judicial Review, where the grounds for challenge are more clearly defined, while understanding the specific, difficult circumstances under which a tort claim might be viable6. The Letter Before Claim to Bank of England served as another practical example of pre-action conduct, reinforcing the importance of our own letters in formally establishing the dispute and creating the necessary conditions for a potential negotiated settlement7.
From the competition law files, CLP vertical UAS.pdf and CLP horizontal UAS.pdf, I extracted the critical analytical framework for demonstrating harm. These materials show how a unilateral decision by a dominant entity, such as the MOD’s direct contract award, has both horizontal effects by foreclosing the market to competitors, and vertical effects by locking in a specific supply chain8. This is vital for our campaign and mediation efforts, as it allows us to articulate the systemic damage to the entire market, beyond the loss suffered by any single company. The file BAES, Competition Law, and Claims.pdf provided important context, illustrating how competition law principles are applied to major players within the UK defence sector9. This precedent helps our media campaign by showing that our concerns are not novel, and it provides leverage in any mediation by referencing how these issues have been handled previously with other dominant contractors
Collectively, these extracts allow us to build a multi-faceted strategy. We can ground our legal case in established principles, inform our media campaign with real-world precedents of both government failings and the application of competition law in this sector, and structure a compelling, credible mediation proposal based on proven ADR frameworks and a deep understanding of the legal risks faced by all parties.