Global-wide: A Litigation PR & Communications Overview

Geopolitics and Litigation

Major geopolitical crises can cause spiralling reputational issues for those caught up in their wake. In the first phases, the world’s media focuses on the crisis, its central events and key players. Even at this stage, there will be the beginning of “tentacle” analysis. News organisations will make efforts to identify new details and angles to cover as the crisis develops. This can draw in companies and individuals in unexpected ways, subjecting them to heightened media, political and stakeholder scrutiny.

Over three years after the invasion of Ukraine, for example, several aircraft leasing companies were successful in consolidated multi-billion-dollar claims in London against insurers over planes that had been stranded in Russia. Dubbed a “mega trial”, the insurance dispute attracted national and international media scrutiny, thrusting the aircraft leasing industry into the limelight.

From initial operational crisis response through to legal disputes that may only crystallise years later, a robust communications strategy will help a corporate navigate challenging international crises and emerge stronger.

Initial crisis response and planning

Given the possibility of longer-term disputes emerging, while dealing with the initial crisis on the ground, corporates should also give immediate thought to their communications strategy. Bringing specialist crisis and litigation communications advisers on board early creates capacity within a stretched team and helps develop a long-term and flexible strategy to engage and reassure stakeholder groups, politicians and the media, protecting corporate reputation.

From the initial reporting, specialist journalists will follow the “fallout” and seek to identify fresh angles to cover the crisis. A single company can become a microcosm of how developments are impacting an entire industry. Effective stakeholder management in the midst of the crisis will reduce the likelihood of concerned employees or investors leaking to the media. Integrating litigation communications specialists with the legal function will ensure that internal and external communications optimally support the developing legal strategy.

For example, hotels in the UAE were hit by missile fire from Iran during the Iran war. The crisis expanded rapidly in a number of directions: guests were stranded, many of them social media influencers. This created a risk of leaks despite the strict social media laws in the Emirates. A raft of reputational issues started to become apparent. There was the possibility of insurance litigation to recover damages from the strikes and possible litigation regarding the hotels hosting US troops. These interlinked challenges present major reputational threats requiring careful crisis management.

Where companies would usually expect to receive notice of allegations being put to them, and time to formulate a response, the fast-moving nature of media coverage during international crises can compress the timeline for journalists and their right-of-reply requests. Failing to onboard specialists early can result in a rapid scramble to pull together a team and response. There is a clear longer-term risk where full consideration cannot be given to the wider and developing strategic position. By contrast, a well-resourced and prepared communications strategy can help manage any enquiries. It will allow communications to be issued rapidly, with confidence, to deftly navigate areas of risk for the business.

Multi-jurisdictional communications

As a crisis develops, areas of risk exposure grow and any resulting disputes will often span multiple jurisdictions and proceedings. This raises numerous challenges, with differing legal requirements across cases. An integrated strategy with a single team across all ongoing and potential disputes will guide local teams, preventing communications relating to a single case from unwittingly prejudicing the legal position in another jurisdiction, or being viewed negatively by wider stakeholders.

This is particularly vital when judgments begin to be handed down. Ensuring that positive results are effectively publicised in other jurisdictions can bolster the wider narrative. Equally, highlighting the limits of negative results and outlining plans to appeal can significantly limit potential damage. Through the life cycle of any major crisis, working to protect a company’s relationship with its key stakeholders and maintain confidence in the senior leadership team is of paramount importance.

A good example of this is the fallout from the war in Ukraine, where sanctioned Russian parties have sought to utilise Russian courts to circumvent forum agreements within contracts. This can result in two diametrically opposed decisions on the same factual matter. Both parties try to convince third-party jurisdictions that the rulings they have obtained should be acknowledged for enforcement purposes. Preparing for this phase of the dispute in advance by working to lead the narrative in each jurisdiction will help prevent hostile coverage from embedding itself and potentially influencing proceedings.

An effective communications strategy must be resilient and flexible. A rigid approach simply will not be able to keep pace with movements in the geopolitical situation and developments in fallout legal cases across multiple jurisdictions.

Uncertain risks

A company need not be at the centre of the early stages of a developing crisis for reputational damage to occur down the line. By way of example, a number of US microchip companies have faced sustained reputational risk as a result of their products being used in Russian weaponry in Ukraine. This has occurred by way of a number of developments: (i) think tank and NGO reports revealed that Russia had stockpiled technology prior to the war; and (ii) a US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report that found that products were still making their way to Russia via third parties. The companies now face damaging lawsuits in the US from Ukrainian citizens over alleged failure to comply with export controls.

As the evidence mounted up, the companies involved have faced intense media scrutiny and political pressure. Regulatory action against companies during a crisis is always a possibility, as are international lawsuits brought by victims caught up in events which they allege have caused them harm. These claims humanise the allegations, land powerfully with news audiences and stakeholders, and can cause acute reputational damage. A communications strategy must be sensitive to the human cost of the crisis. There is nothing worse for any company or organisation than appearing to be tone-deaf in the face of human suffering.

Civil litigation, particularly in jurisdictions such as England and Wales and the United States, brings with it wider reputational concerns. External communications can be used to reassure stakeholders and manage media attention. However, the disclosure/discovery process in litigation can make internal documents publicly available. They can shine an entirely fresh light on the facts, and if leveraged by a counterparty and pounced on by the press, can cause enormous damage. Working to identify such documents early in the litigation process will help inform both the risk matrix and the corporate appetite for settlement or alternative dispute resolution.

Conclusion

Managing communications in an increasingly unstable world is a major challenge for corporates. While flashpoints cannot be accurately predicted, building reputational crisis resilience into forward planning is fundamental. Rapidly moving geopolitical crises will almost inevitably give rise to future legal disputes. Decisions made in the heat of the moment come under more detailed scrutiny as the situation begins to settle and the lawyers move in. Ensuring that litigation and crisis specialists are engaged early, and made an integral part of the crisis response, reduces risk and positions companies to weather both the initial storm and any aftermath.