Behaviour, not brochure
A profile built from what the counterparty has done in past conflicts — the most reliable predictor of what it will do in yours.
Counterparty litigation risk
Before the deal or the fight: know who you are actually facing.
Counterparty litigation-risk assessments by Aun & Co.: dispute history, enforcement reality and behavioural profile of the party across the table.
A counterparty's paper position is public; its behaviour under conflict is knowable. How often it litigates and how it behaves when it does, whether judgments against it were ever collected, how its corporate structure absorbs or deflects claims, who its counsel are and how they fight — this is litigation-risk intelligence, assembled from court records, corporate registries and enforcement data. The firm produces it before deals, before disputes, and before decisions that assume the other side will behave.
The work spans
- Litigation-history profile from Israeli court and tribunal records
- Enforcement reality check: are judgments against them collectable
- Corporate-structure analysis: where liability lands and where it hides
- Behavioural read: settlement patterns, tactics, counsel of choice
- Written risk profile with deal or dispute recommendations
- You are about to sign with a counterparty whose polish exceeds its paper trail.
- Before funding litigation, you want to know if the defendant is worth winning against.
- A counterparty's threats arrive daily and you need to know if it ever follows through.
- The other side operates through a structure designed to keep assets one step away.
The firm reads the counterparty's litigation record the way it reads a case file: not counting lawsuits but characterising them — who sues them, on what, how matters end, and what the pattern says about the organisation behind it. Structure is mapped from registries: entities, charges, guarantees, the distance between the trading name and the assets. The product is a profile with a conclusion: how this party will behave in conflict, and what your deal or claim should assume.
04 · What you get
Collectability first
The enforcement question answered before costs are sunk: a winnable case against an empty defendant is an expensive certificate.
Structure decoded
The entity map behind the trading name, showing where a claim would actually land — and what security the deal should demand now.
A typical engagement: before extending significant credit terms, a client commissions a profile of its new counterparty. The record shows a pattern of supplier disputes settled late and a structure holding assets outside the contracting entity — the deal proceeds, on personal guarantees it would not otherwise have demanded.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
What can be learned about a company's litigation history in Israel?
A substantial amount from public sources: court files, published decisions, corporate-registry records, registered charges and insolvency indicators. Assembled properly, they show how a party behaves in conflict — the fact pattern behind the reputation.
How do I know if a judgment against a counterparty would be collectable?
By checking the enforcement picture before suing: registered assets and charges against the contracting entity, the distance between it and the group's real holdings, and any history of judgments left unsatisfied. Collectability analysis belongs before the claim, not after the win.
When is a counterparty risk assessment worth commissioning?
Whenever the exposure exceeds the cost of knowing: significant contracts, extended credit, funding a lawsuit, or facing a party whose threats you must price. It typically takes days, and it converts assumption into information at the exact moment assumptions are most expensive.