COCOO CASES

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO AI Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Analytical Supremacy

This doctrine establishes the protocol for leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms such as specialized GPTs (e.g., NACE Classifiers, Marketing Companions), and general large language models (LLMs) like Gemini and ChatGPT. These tools are not primary sources of evidence; they are a strategic layer of analysis applied to the intelligence gathered from all other platforms. Their purpose is to dramatically accelerate the process of sifting through data, identifying patterns, generating narratives, and weaponizing information to achieve COCOO’s core objectives.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of AI is governed by the most advanced principles of the COCOO framework. We do not ask simple questions; we assign strategic missions.

• The Ultimate Noisefilter: The primary function of AI in the COCOO doctrine is to act as the ultimate Noisefilter.¹ We will feed vast quantities of unstructured data—such as hundreds of regulatory announcements, thousands of pages of financial reports, or extensive media coverage—into these models to have them instantly extract the critical signals from the noise, allowing our human analysts to focus only on what matters.
• Force Multiplication: AI allows a single solicitor to perform the initial analytical work of a large team. It can summarize, translate, categorize, and draft at a scale and speed that is otherwise impossible, enabling COCOO to operate with superior efficiency and scope.
• Narrative Generation and Weaponization: Evidence is only as powerful as the story it tells. We will use AI to rapidly draft compelling narratives for our complaints, Unsolicited Proposals (USP), and media campaigns. By providing the AI with the factual evidence, we can have it construct the initial arguments, frame the public interest angle, and tailor the message to the target audience (e.g., a regulator, a potential government client, the public).
• Overcoming Platform Limitations: We will use specialized AI tools to overcome the functional gaps in other platforms. The most critical application of this is using a NACE/SIC Classifier GPT to categorize companies identified on OpenCorporates, which lacks this search functionality, thereby enabling targeted sectoral analysis on other platforms like the EC’s competition database or Companies House.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and “Rules” of Engagement

Unlike structured databases, the “rules” for AI are not about search syntax but about the art of strategic prompting. Effective interrogation requires providing the AI with a clear mission.

• Key Capabilities:

  • Summarization & Extraction: Condensing lengthy documents (e.g., annual reports, court judgments) into executive summaries or extracting specific data points (e.g., all mentions of “supply chain risk”).
  • Classification & Categorization: Applying labels to data, such as using a NACE Classifier GPT to assign industry codes to a list of companies.
  • Sentiment Analysis: Assessing the tone of news articles, social media commentary, or shareholder communications to gauge public and investor opinion.
  • Drafting & Generation: Creating initial drafts of documents, from formal complaints and USPs to press releases and internal briefings.
  • Translation: Rapidly translating documents from foreign jurisdictions to enable faster analysis.

• The Rules of Engagement (Strategic Prompting):

  1. Define the Persona: Always begin by assigning the AI a role.
     • Example: “Act as a senior competition law analyst for the European Commission.”
  2. Provide Clear Context: Give the AI all the relevant background information it needs to understand the task.
     • Example: “I am preparing a complaint to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority regarding a suspected ‘stealth consolidation’ in the UK veterinary services market.”
  3. State the Mission Clearly: Define the specific task you want it to perform.
     • Example: “Analyze the following 20 regulatory announcements from the London Stock Exchange. Identify every announcement related to an acquisition or merger. For each, extract the names of the acquirer and target, the deal value, and the stated strategic rationale.”
  4. Specify the Output Format: Tell the AI exactly how you want the information presented.
     • Example: “Present your findings in a markdown table with the columns: ‘Date’, ‘Acquirer’, ‘Target’, ‘Deal Value’, ‘Stated Rationale’, and ‘Key Risk Factors’.”
  5. Provide Examples (Few-Shot Prompting): For complex tasks, give the AI an example of the desired output to ensure it understands the format and level of detail required.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate AI platforms with mission-oriented prompts designed to advance our strategic goals.

• For StealthConsolid & MATOIPO Analysis:

  • “Act as a forensic financial analyst. I am providing the annual reports for three companies: [e.g., VetPartners, IVC Evidensia, Linnaeus]. Analyze the ‘Management Discussion & Analysis’ and ‘Risk Factors’ sections of each. Extract and summarize any language related to acquisition strategy, market consolidation, or competitive pressures. Identify any common themes across the three reports.”
  • “Here are 50 ‘Holding(s) in Company’ announcements. Identify all instances where a single fund, such as “, has increased its stake in multiple competing companies within the same sector over the last quarter. Present this as evidence of potential coordinated influence.”

• For USP-to-WTO & Victim Identification:

  • “Act as a trade policy advisor drafting a proposal for the government of Kenya. I am providing data from the Global Trade Alert on a new, potentially illegal EU product standard affecting Kenyan coffee exports, and the financial statements of three major Kenyan coffee exporters. Synthesize this information into a three-paragraph executive summary for a USP, highlighting the economic harm to Kenya and positioning COCOO as the expert partner with the proprietary data needed to win a WTO case.”
  • “Analyze these Spanish-language agricultural news articles and forum posts. Identify and translate all mentions of farmer discontent related to low prices paid by large supermarket chains like [e.g., Mercadona, Carrefour]. This is for a FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants) analysis.”

• For Public Tender & Competitor Disqualification:

  • “Act as a public procurement risk assessor. Our competitor for a government IT contract is [e.g., Capita PLC]. I am providing their last two annual reports and 15 recent news articles. Summarize any information related to project delays, cost overruns, shareholder dissent, or negative regulatory findings. Frame this summary as a ‘Risk Dossier’ for a government client.”

4. The COCOO-AI Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for integrating AI into our core operations.

Playbook A: The “Noisefilter” Funnel

• Objective: To rapidly process high volumes of unstructured data to identify the most critical intelligence for human review.
• Execution:
  1. Data Ingestion: Collect a large dataset from a primary source (e.g., all LSE announcements in the “Technology” sector for the past month from Investegate).
  2. AI Mission Prompt: Use a prompt based on the “Rules of Engagement”: “Act as an M&A intelligence analyst. Your task is to review the following 200 company announcements. Your sole focus is to identify any announcement that discusses a merger, acquisition, disposal, strategic investment, or the appointment of a new CEO or CFO. For each relevant announcement you find, extract the company name, the date, the headline, and a one-sentence summary of the event. Ignore all other announcements. Present the results in a table.”
  3. Human Analysis: Review the AI-generated summary table. Instead of reading 200 documents, the human solicitor now only needs to perform a deep dive on the 5-10 highly relevant documents flagged by the AI.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook dramatically increases the scope and efficiency of our market monitoring, ensuring we never miss a critical MATOIPO trigger or StealthConsolid signal.

Playbook B: The “NACE/SIC Classification Engine”

• Objective: To overcome the lack of industry code search on platforms like OpenCorporates, enabling targeted, sector-wide analysis.
• Execution:
  1. Extract Company List: From OpenCorporates, compile a list of companies in a jurisdiction of interest (e.g., all companies containing the word “Logistics” in Germany).
  2. Engage Classifier GPT: Use the specialized NACE Classifier GPT. Prompt: “Here is a list of 50 company names. Based on their names, assign the most likely NACE Rev. 2 code to each. Format the output as a two-column table: ‘Company Name’ | ‘NACE Code’.”
  3. Pivot to Targeted Search: Take the AI-generated list of NACE codes. Use these codes to run a targeted search on the EC Competition Cases database to see if any of these companies have been involved in EU-level antitrust or merger cases.²
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates a direct, powerful synergy between our intelligence tools, using AI to bridge a critical functionality gap and unlock deeper levels of sectoral intelligence.

Playbook C: The “Complaint Drafter”

• Objective: To accelerate the creation of formal complaints and other legal documents by using AI to generate a structured first draft.
• Execution:
  1. Compile Evidence: Gather the key facts for a complaint (e.g., data from Violation Tracker showing a pattern of environmental breaches by a water company like “, and data from GOV.UK showing the regulator has missed its own enforcement targets).
  2. AI Drafting Mission: Prompt the AI: “Act as a UK public law solicitor. Using the following bullet points of evidence, draft the ‘Factual Background’ and ‘Grounds for Complaint’ sections of a formal complaint to the regulator, Ofwat. The complaint’s core argument is that the regulator is failing in its statutory duty to address systemic environmental violations by the company. Frame the argument as a matter of significant public interest (WPI).”
  3. Human Refinement: The solicitor takes the AI-generated draft, which provides a solid structure and narrative flow, and refines it with legal nuance, case law citations, and strategic polish.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook cuts drafting time significantly, allowing solicitors to focus on high-level legal strategy rather than initial composition, enabling COCOO to launch more interventions, more quickly.

The COCOO-BRIS Doctrine: A Strategic Model for EU Foundational Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), accessible via the European e-Justice Portal. BRIS is the foundational layer of all COCOO intelligence operations within the European Union. We do not use it as a simple directory; we use it as a strategic tool to establish facts, verify targets, and build the non-negotiable, evidence-based foundation upon which all our advanced strategic plays—from StealthConsolid investigations to high-value USP deployments—are built.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of BRIS is governed by the core tenets of the COCOO framework. Every search is an act of establishing the ground truth.

• Verification Before Action: Before any complaint is filed, any legal action is initiated, or any Unsolicited Proposal is drafted, we verify the target. BRIS is our primary tool for confirming the official legal existence, name, registration number, and seat of any limited liability company within the EU.¹ This eliminates ambiguity and prevents fatal procedural errors.
• Mapping the Cross-Border Footprint: BRIS is the only tool that provides a single search interface across all EU member state business registers.¹ We leverage this to conduct initial sweeps for a target’s corporate presence across Europe, providing the initial breadcrumbs for deeper “Stealth Consolidation” and MATOIPO analysis.⁴
• Foundational Data for Complaints (COCON): A complaint to a regulator (EC, CMA, etc.) that contains incorrect information about the target entity is immediately discredited. We use BRIS to ensure every formal submission is built on a foundation of unimpeachable, official registry data, thereby strengthening our position from the outset.⁴
• Acknowledging Limitations to Gain Advantage: We recognize that BRIS is a deliberately simple tool. It lacks advanced filters for industry, company status, or officers.⁵ Our doctrine embraces this. We use BRIS for its core purpose—entity verification—and then pivot to more advanced national registers or specialized tools to build out the intelligence picture, a methodical approach our adversaries may neglect.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of BRIS requires understanding its precise function and its intentional limitations. The system is designed for verification, not exploration.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality:
  • Search Interface: The platform is accessed via the European e-Justice Portal and provides a single, unified search form.⁵
  • Search Criteria: The search is limited to two primary fields:
    1. Company name: The legal name of the entity.
    2. Company registration number: The official registration number in its home member state.
  • Jurisdiction Selection: The user can choose to search in all participating countries or select specific member states to target the query.⁵
  • Information Availability: The search returns a list of matching companies. Basic information is available free of charge:
    • Company Name
    • Legal Form (e.g., GmbH, S.A., S.L.)
    • Registered Office and Country
    • Company Registration Number ²
  • Deeper Document Access: Users can select a company from the results to see a list of other available documents, such as articles of association or annual accounts. While the list is visible, accessing the documents themselves may require navigating to the national register’s website and potentially paying a fee.⁶
  • European Unique Identifier (EUID): Each company has a unique EUID used for official communication between registers, which helps in unequivocally identifying entities across the EU.²

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate BRIS not for complex insights, but for foundational facts that enable our complex strategies.

• For MATOIPO & StealthConsolid Analysis:

  • What is the exact, official legal name and registration number of the target subsidiary in Germany? In Spain? In Poland?
  • Does the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) named in this merger announcement officially exist in the Luxembourg register?
  • Can we confirm the legal form and registered seat of all named parties in this cross-border merger to establish jurisdictional facts?

• For USP-to-WTO & Victim Identification (FOC DAM):

  • We have a list of ten potential corporate victims of an illegal trade barrier in France. Do all ten exist as active, registered limited liability companies on the French business register?
  • What are the official registered addresses of these potential victims, which we will need for formal correspondence when building our coalition?

• For All Formal Complaints & Litigation (COCON, APPEALS):

  • What is the precise, legally registered name and registration number of the EU-based company we are filing this complaint against?
  • Are we targeting the correct legal entity within the target’s corporate group, or are we targeting a non-existent or holding company with no operational liability?

4. The COCOO-BRIS Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized, repeatable workflows for using BRIS to generate the foundational intelligence for all COCOO operations.

Playbook A: The “Entity Verification” Protocol (Mandatory First Step)

• Objective: To confirm the existence and precise legal identity of any EU-based company before dedicating further resources. This is a non-negotiable first step for any case file.
• Execution:
  1. Input Known Data: Navigate to the BRIS search page on the e-Justice Portal.⁵ Enter the known Company name and/or Company registration number.
  2. Target Jurisdiction: Select the specific member state where the company is believed to be registered.
  3. Execute and Verify: Run the search. The primary goal is to get a single, unambiguous match.
  4. Log Foundational Data: Record the official full name, registration number, legal form, registered seat, and the EUID into the case file. This data is now considered verified.
• Strategic Outcome: This protocol ensures that all subsequent COCOO actions—from complaints to litigation to USPs—are directed at the correct, legally registered entity, eliminating the risk of a case being dismissed on a basic procedural error. It establishes the first block of verified evidence.

Playbook B: The “Cross-Border Footprint” Sweep

• Objective: To conduct a rapid, high-level survey of a target’s potential corporate presence across the entire European Union.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Target Name: Use the primary name of the target corporate group (e.g., “Adversary Group”).
  2. Broad Search: On the BRIS search page, enter the core name in the Company name field.
  3. Select All Jurisdictions: Critically, ensure that Search in all participating countries is active by selecting all available countries.⁵
  4. Analyze Results: The results will show a list of all companies across the EU that contain the search term. Look for logical variations (e.g., “Adversary Group GmbH,” “Adversary Group S.A.S.,” “Adversary Group Sp. z o.o.”).
  5. Create Target List: Compile a list of all potential sister companies or subsidiaries identified in different member states.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides an initial map of a target’s potential EU-wide structure. While not definitive, it provides the critical leads for a deeper StealthConsolid investigation. Each entity on this new list must then be subjected to Playbook A for verification and further investigation in its respective national register.

Playbook C: The “Post-Merger” Verification

• Objective: To verify the legal status of companies following a cross-border merger or acquisition within the EU.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Acquired Entity: Note the name and home country of a company that has been acquired in a recent MATOIPO event.
  2. Search for Target: Six to twelve months after the deal’s completion, search for the acquired company’s name in its home jurisdiction using BRIS.
  3. Interpret Results:
     • No Result / Status Change: If the company no longer appears or if the details indicate a change (e.g., information on winding-up), it provides evidence that the entity has been legally dissolved or absorbed. BRIS is designed to exchange messages between registers regarding cross-border mergers and liquidations.¹
     • Result Unchanged: If the company still appears as before, it suggests it remains a distinct legal entity, which may have implications for ongoing remedies or liabilities.
• Strategic Outcome: This allows COCOO to track the real-world legal consequences of mergers, providing evidence of whether an acquired brand continues to exist as a separate legal entity with potential ongoing obligations or liabilities that can be targeted.

Of course. I have completed a full analysis of all the strategic mind maps you provided. Integrating these directives, I will now provide the standard interrogation model for the next search platform in your arsenal: OpenSanctions.

The COCOO-OpenSanctions Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Risk Intelligence and Offensive Leverage

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating OpenSanctions (opensanctions.org), COCOO’s primary weapon for identifying and assessing risk associated with individuals and corporate entities. This platform is not merely a defensive compliance tool; it is an offensive instrument used to create leverage, disqualify competitors, and disrupt adversarial strategies. It is the critical final step in the RNS OC OS intelligence pipeline, transforming corporate data into actionable risk intelligence.¹

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of OpenSanctions is guided by the most aggressive principles of the COCOO strategic framework. We do not simply check for names; we hunt for the pressure points that will break open a case or win a contract.

• The RNS OC OS Pipeline: This is a foundational COCOO intelligence cycle.¹ We first use OpenCorporates (OC) to identify the key entities and officers in a situation. We then pivot to OpenSanctions (OS) to screen these targets. A positive “hit” on a sanctions or Politically Exposed Person (PEP) list provides immediate, powerful leverage.
• Leverage Through Risk: A sanctions designation or a high-risk PEP status associated with an adversary is not just a red flag; it is a weapon. It can be used to challenge the fitness of a competitor in a public tender, to question the validity of a merger on national security grounds, or to create insurmountable reputational and financial risk for an opponent, forcing them to settle.
• Proactive Disqualification: In the context of public procurement, our goal is to proactively disqualify competitors. By screening all bidders for a tender, we can identify those with links to sanctioned entities or high-risk PEPs. This intelligence, when presented to the contracting authority, can lead to the exclusion of a competitor, directly supporting the strategy to “EXCLUDE THEM FROM EU PROC/CONCS”.¹
• Identifying Badpartitosses: A core COCOO goal is to create a “viable wholesale system… in the absence of badpartitosses”.¹ OpenSanctions is our primary filter for identifying these “bad actors.” Every potential partner, client, counterparty, and adversary is screened to ensure COCOO operates in a clean and strategically advantageous environment.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of OpenSanctions’ advanced search and matching technology is essential for executing our doctrine. The platform is designed for precision screening.²

• Official Search Rules & Functionality:
  • Advanced Search Interface: The primary interface allows for targeted screening using specific fields:
    • Name: The name of the person or legal entity. The system uses fuzzy matching and transliteration to find variations.²
    • Entity type: Crucially, we can specify whether we are searching for a Person or a Legal entity (which includes companies and organizations).²
    • Nationality: Filtering by country code (e.g., RU for Russia) significantly refines searches for individuals.²
    • Birth date: Adding a date of birth (even just the year) dramatically increases the accuracy of a match for an individual.²
  • Matching API & Scoring: For systematic screening, the /match API is the primary tool. It compares a query entity against the database and returns a score between 0.0 (no match) and 1.0 (perfect match). We can set a threshold (e.g., 0.7) to define what constitutes a “match,” allowing us to balance the risk of false positives and false negatives.²
  • Fuzzy Matching: The system automatically accounts for spelling variations and transliterations (e.g., searching for “Sergei” will also find “Sergey”). This is a critical feature for international targets.²
  • Data Scope: The default dataset includes global sanctions lists, lists of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), and data on criminal watchlists and debarments, providing a comprehensive risk profile.³

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate OpenSanctions to find answers that create strategic openings and mitigate risk.

• For MATOIPO / StealthConsolid Analysis:

  • Are the directors, ultimate beneficial owners, or key financiers of the acquiring entity on any sanctions list?
  • Are they PEPs, and could their political connections create conflicts of interest or attract regulatory scrutiny under national security investment rules?
  • Does a sanctions “hit” on a key party provide grounds to challenge the merger with the CMA or European Commission?

• For Public Procurement & Competitor Disqualification:

  • Is our competitor for this public contract, or any of their directors or parent companies, a sanctioned entity?
  • Are their key executives high-risk PEPs, posing a reputational or corruption risk to the government contracting authority?
  • Can we use a positive hit to file a formal challenge to their bid, questioning the authority’s due diligence?

• For USP-to-WTO & International Leverage:

  • Are the key government officials or corporate beneficiaries of the illegal trade barrier we are challenging listed as PEPs?
  • Does this suggest corruption or undue influence that would strengthen our case when presenting a USP to the victim nation’s government?

• For General Due Diligence (Identifying Badpartitosses):

  • Is this potential partner, client, or counterparty clean?
  • What is their risk profile based on sanctions, PEP, and criminal watchlist data?

4. The COCOO-OpenSanctions Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized, repeatable workflows for using OpenSanctions to generate high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The OC-OS Network Screening Protocol

• Objective: To conduct foundational risk and leverage analysis on any individual or entity of interest. This is a mandatory step in all COCOO intelligence workups.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Target: Using OpenCorporates, identify the full legal name of the target company and its key officers/directors.
  2. Initiate Search: Go to the OpenSanctions Advanced Search page.¹
  3. Screen the Entity: Enter the company’s name in the Name field and select Legal entity as the Entity type.² Execute the search.
  4. Screen the Individuals: For each director, enter their full name in the Name field, select Person as the Entity type, and add their Nationality and Birth date (if known from other sources) to increase accuracy.²
  5. Analyze and Document: Review all results. Any result with a high match score (typically >0.7) is considered a significant finding. Document the specific list (e.g., US OFAC Sanctions, EU Consolidated List, PEP) on which the target appears.
• Strategic Outcome: This protocol provides a rapid and accurate risk assessment, forming the basis for all other strategic plays. A “hit” immediately escalates the target’s profile and provides COCOO with powerful leverage.

Playbook B: The Public Tender “Disqualification” Play

• Objective: To systematically eliminate competitors from public procurement processes by identifying and exposing their sanctions-related risks.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Bidders: As soon as the list of bidders for a public tender is known, initiate this playbook.
  2. Conduct Full Screening: Execute Playbook A on every competing company and all of their listed directors.
  3. Isolate High-Risk Competitors: Identify any competitor with a confirmed link to a sanctioned entity or a high-risk PEP.
  4. Weaponize the Intelligence: Draft a formal communication to the relevant government contracting authority’s Procurement Review Unit.⁴ The communication will not make accusations but will ask pointed questions based on the public data found on OpenSanctions (e.g., “Can the Authority confirm it has conducted enhanced due diligence on Bidder X, given that its parent company, Y, appears on the?”).
• Strategic Outcome: This action places the contracting authority in an untenable position. To award the contract to the flagged bidder would be to accept a significant reputational and legal risk. This pressure often leads to the competitor’s disqualification, clearing the path for COCOO or its client.

Playbook C: The MATOIPO Disruption Play

• Objective: To disrupt or block a hostile or anti-competitive merger or acquisition by revealing sanctions risks associated with the deal.
• Execution:
  1. Analyze the Deal: For any MATOIPO event being monitored, use OpenCorporates and RNS announcements to identify the acquiring entity, its ultimate beneficial owners, its directors, and any known major financiers.
  2. Screen All Parties: Execute Playbook A on every individual and entity involved in financing and directing the acquisition.
  3. Deploy Leverage: If a significant sanctions or PEP link is discovered, deploy the intelligence based on the strategic context:
     • Covert Disruption: Discreetly leak the information to financial institutions involved in funding the deal to create uncertainty and potentially halt financing.
     • Regulatory Challenge: Submit the findings to regulators (CMA, EC, or national security bodies) as part of a formal objection to the merger, arguing the deal is not in the public interest or poses a national security risk.
     • Public Pressure: Use the information to fuel a public campaign against the merger, highlighting the toxic nature of the entities involved.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook can halt a merger in its tracks, force the acquirer to make significant concessions (remedies), or create an opportunity for a friendly counter-bidder, positioning COCOO as a key player in shaping market outcomes.

HAZTE MIEMBRO GRATIS   PROYECTOS ABIERTOS     QUIENES SOMOS   MEDIACION   DIPLOMACIA   DONACIONES  PRIVACIDAD CONDICIONES

GSC    MEDIA CAMPAIGN MODEL    LINKACTION

The COCOO-OpenCorporates Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Corporate Network Intelligence

This doctrine establishes a systematic methodology for interrogating OpenCorporates (opencorporates.com), the world’s largest open database of companies. This platform is the central hub for all of COCOO’s corporate intelligence operations. Our mission is to use it not merely as a directory, but as a strategic weapon to map corporate ecosystems, uncover hidden control structures, identify leverage points, and execute COCOO’s core doctrines, including “Stealth Consolidation” (StealthConsolid), “Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages” (FOC DAM), and the creation of high-value Unsolicited Proposals (USP).¹

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of OpenCorporates is guided by the foundational principles of the COCOO strategic framework. We do not simply look up companies; we dissect their DNA to find actionable intelligence.

• Mapping the Ecosystem: Our primary objective is to move beyond the single entity and map its entire global corporate ecosystem. This includes all parent companies, subsidiaries, branches, and the network of officers who connect them. This is the bedrock of all our strategic plays.
• Unmasking Control: We operate on the principle that true control is often obscured. OpenCorporates is our primary tool for identifying common directors, tracing ownership chains across multiple jurisdictions, and unmasking the ultimate beneficial owners behind complex corporate veils. This is fundamental to challenging “Sole or Joint control” structures in MATOIPO events.¹
• The OC-OS Nexus: OpenCorporates is the starting point of the critical RNS OC OS intelligence pipeline.¹ We use it to identify the corporate entities and individuals who will then be cross-referenced on OpenSanctions (OS) for sanctions and political exposure, and on regulatory news services (RNS) for market activity.
• Global Reach for Global Plays: The platform’s coverage of over 140 jurisdictions is essential for executing our international strategies, such as identifying corporate victims of illegal trade barriers for the “USP-to-WTO” pipeline or analyzing the global structure of a target in a merger.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastering OpenCorporates’ search functionality is critical. While seemingly simple, its power lies in its global scope and the ability to pivot between entities and individuals.²

• Official Search Rules & Functionality:

  • Dual Search Focus: The platform allows for two distinct searches: by Companies or by Officers. This dual capability is the core of our network analysis, allowing us to pivot from an entity to the people behind it, and vice-versa.²
  • Global Jurisdiction Filter: We can search across All jurisdictions to cast a wide net or filter by a specific country to conduct targeted investigations. This is crucial for tracking the international footprint of a corporate group.²
  • Company Status Filter: The ability to exclude inactive companies allows us to focus our intelligence gathering on live, operational entities, filtering out the noise of dissolved companies.²
  • Advanced Search Options: The platform provides filters to refine searches by company type (e.g., non-profit), whether to include branches, and where the keyword appears in the company record.²
  • Primary Source Links: Every entry contains a link to the original, primary source registry, allowing for direct verification of the data.
  • API Access: The existence of a comprehensive API allows for the potential development of automated monitoring and large-scale data analysis tools, which COCOO can leverage for advanced “Noisefilter” operations.³

• Critical Limitations:

  • No Industry Code Search: OpenCorporates does not have a function to search by industry classification codes (SIC/NACE). This is a significant limitation. Our doctrine mandates a workaround: identify a UK entity on OpenCorporates, pivot to its official Companies House record to find its SIC code, and then use that SIC code on the Companies House platform to identify all direct competitors.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

As COCOO’s solicitor, we interrogate OpenCorporates to find answers to specific strategic questions derived directly from our mind maps.

• For StealthConsolid & Aggregation:

  • Who are the directors of the small companies being acquired in this sector? Do they share any common directors, suggesting a coordinated but undeclared consolidation effort?
  • What is the full global corporate structure of the acquiring entity? Are they using multiple, seemingly unrelated subsidiaries to execute a creeping takeover?
  • Can we identify a common corporate officer across a series of small acquisitions that, when aggregated, would trigger a merger review threshold (“SOTT”)?

• For MATOIPO & Control Analysis:

  • What other companies are the directors of the acquiring and target firms involved with? Does this reveal potential conflicts of interest or hidden alliances?
  • Is the acquiring company a subsidiary of a larger, more powerful entity in a different jurisdiction? Who is the ultimate controlling party?
  • What is the date of incorporation for the special purpose vehicle (SPV) being used for the acquisition? Was it created specifically for this deal?

• For USP-to-WTO & Victim Identification:

  • Which are the major corporate players in the specific industry of Nation A that is being harmed by an illegal trade barrier from Nation B?
  • Are these victim companies domestic entities, or are they subsidiaries of larger multinational corporations who may have different incentives?
  • Who are the directors of these victim companies? Can we leverage their other business connections to gain support for our USP?

4. The COCOO-OpenCorporates Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized, repeatable workflows for using OpenCorporates to generate the foundational intelligence for all COCOO operations.

Playbook A: The “Corporate Ecosystem” Map (Foundational Intelligence)

• Objective: To create a comprehensive map of a target entity’s entire global corporate network. This is the mandatory first step in any investigation.
• Execution:
  1. Initial Company Search: Search the target Company name in OpenCorporates with the All jurisdictions filter selected.
  2. Identify Core Entities: From the results, identify the primary operating companies and the ultimate parent entity. Log their jurisdictions, incorporation dates, and current status (active/inactive).
  3. Map the Officer Network: For each key entity, click through to its page and identify all listed Officers (directors, secretaries, etc.).
  4. Pivot to Officer Search: Take the name of each key officer and conduct a new Officer search on OpenCorporates. This will reveal all other companies they are associated with, globally.
  5. Synthesize and Visualize: Consolidate the findings into a network diagram showing the relationships between all identified companies and officers. This map becomes the foundational intelligence document for the case.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides a complete picture of the target’s structure, size, and the key individuals in control, revealing connections and potential leverage points that are invisible from a single-company view.

Playbook B: The “Stealth Consolidation” Detector

• Objective: To identify undeclared creeping acquisitions that, when aggregated, represent a significant lessening of competition, forming the basis of a high-impact complaint to regulators.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Acquirers: Using intelligence from other platforms (e.g., Investegate), identify several companies that have recently made small acquisitions in a specific market segment.
  2. Map Directorates: For each acquiring company, execute Playbook A to identify their current directors.
  3. Find the Common Link: Compare the lists of directors across all the acquiring companies. Search for a common name—often a director appointed by a single private equity fund or holding company.
  4. Confirm the Link: Once a common director is found, perform an Officer search for that individual’s name on OpenCorporates to confirm their directorships across all the acquiring entities.
  5. Build the Case: The presence of a common director across multiple acquiring companies in the same niche market is powerful evidence of a coordinated “Stealth Consolidation” strategy. This evidence is then used to build a formal complaint.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook allows COCOO to create high-value competition cases out of seemingly insignificant market activities, positioning COCOO as a uniquely sophisticated market analyst and defender of fair competition.

Playbook C: The “Victim Identification” Protocol (for USP-to-WTO)

• Objective: To identify and profile the key corporate victims of an illegal trade barrier, providing the raw data needed to build a compelling Unsolicited Proposal to a national government.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Market: Based on the illegal trade barrier identified (e.g., a discriminatory standard on chemical products from Nation B affecting Nation A), define the target industry in Nation A.
  2. Identify Major Players: Use general market knowledge and other tools to identify the likely top 5-10 companies in that industry within Nation A.
  3. Conduct Ecosystem Mapping: For each identified company, execute Playbook A on OpenCorporates. The primary goal is to understand their corporate structure.
  4. Assess Incentives: Determine if the victim companies are locally owned or subsidiaries of global corporations. A local company has a direct interest in fighting the barrier. A subsidiary’s parent company may have conflicting interests in Nation B, making them reluctant to support litigation. This intelligence is crucial for selecting which victims to approach.
• Strategic Outcome: This protocol provides COCOO with a detailed understanding of the corporate landscape affected by a trade barrier. It allows us to select the companies whose incentives are most aligned with litigation and to approach their national government with a USP that is already backed by a deep understanding of the key commercial players, a level of detail that government lawyers often lack.¹

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

 report 1

report 2

The COCOO-Investegate Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Evidence and Opportunity

This doctrine outlines a systematic approach to interrogating the Investegate platform (investegate.co.uk), a key aggregator of UK company announcements. The goal is to move beyond passive monitoring and actively hunt for the triggers, vulnerabilities, and patterns that underpin COCOO’s core strategies, such as “Stealth Consolidation,” “MATOIPO” (Mergers, Acquisitions, Takeovers, IPOs) analysis, and the creation of Unsolicited Proposals (USPs).¹

1. Platform Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of the tool is the first step. Investegate’s power lies in its advanced search functionality, which allows for the precise dissection of market communications.²

• Official Search Rules & Functionality:
  • Targeted Search: You can search by Company name, EPIC/TIDM (the company’s stock market ticker), or SEDOL/ISIN (unique security identifiers) to focus on a specific entity.²
  • Keyword Search: The platform supports two types of keyword searches. You can search for keywords within the Headline of an announcement, or you can conduct a full-text search for a word or phrase within the body of the announcement itself. This is critical for finding information not explicitly mentioned in a headline.²
  • Categorical Filtering: You can isolate specific types of corporate actions by filtering by Select Categories. Crucial categories for our purposes include “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals,” “Executive Changes,” and “Director’s Dealings”.²
  • Sectoral Analysis: The Select Sector filter allows for market-wide intelligence gathering, enabling the identification of sector-level trends and distress signals.²
  • Temporal Filtering: The Time span filter (Date from/Date to) is essential for focusing investigations on specific periods, such as the run-up to a hostile bid or following a major market event.²
  • Known Limitations: Be aware that Investegate filters out certain routine financial announcements such as Net Asset Value (NAV), EMM/EPT, Rule 8, and FRN Variable Rate Fix announcements. Our intelligence gathering must account for these gaps.³

2. Strategic Questions to Interrogate the Platform

As COCOO’s solicitor, we do not simply read announcements; we interrogate the data with purpose. Every search should be designed to answer a strategic question derived from our operational mind maps.¹

• For “Stealth Consolidation” & “MATOIPO” Analysis ¹:

  • Which companies in a target sector are making small, repeated acquisitions that individually fall below regulatory notice thresholds?
  • Is a specific entity or fund building a significant stake in a target company, as evidenced by a series of “Holding(s) in Company” or “TR-1 Notification of Major Interest” announcements? ⁴
  • What are the terms of a proposed merger, and have any “Executive Changes” or director dealings occurred in the run-up to the announcement that might suggest prior knowledge? ²

• For Competitor Vulnerability & “USP” Origination ¹:

  • Has a target company issued a “profit warning” or a negative “trading update” that signals operational or financial distress?
  • Are there frequent, unexplained “Directorate Change” announcements that could indicate internal turmoil or instability, creating an opening for a mediation proposal? ⁸
  • Does the text of an “Annual Results” announcement contain language about “market uncertainty,” “regulatory headwinds,” or “ongoing disputes” that can be leveraged as a sign of weakness? ⁹

• For “FOC DAM” (Find Other Claimants) & Systemic Failure Analysis ¹:

  • Has a company announced a “Result of General Meeting” where a significant shareholder vote against management occurred, indicating widespread discontent that could be monetized? ⁸
  • Are there multiple companies in one sector issuing similar negative trading updates, pointing to a systemic issue (e.g., supply chain failure, anti-competitive pressure from a dominant player) that COCOO can frame as a public interest case?

3. The COCOO-Investegate Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized, repeatable workflows for using Investegate to generate actionable intelligence and create opportunities.

Playbook A: The “Stealth Consolidation” Hunter

• Objective: To detect patterns of creeping acquisitions in a fragmented market that are designed to evade regulatory scrutiny, thereby creating a basis for a complaint to the CMA.
• Execution:
  1. Define Scope: In the Advanced Search, select a target Sector (e.g., “Technology”) and a Time span of the last 12-24 months.²
  2. Filter by Action: Select the Category: “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals”.²
  3. Filter by Influence: In a separate search, use the Headline contains keyword field to search for "Holding(s) in Company" and "TR-1".
  4. Analyze Results: Leave the Company name field blank to see all activity in the sector. Look for a single company making multiple small acquisitions or a single fund (e.g., a private equity firm) appearing in the “Holding(s) in Company” announcements for multiple different companies in the same sector.
  5. Deepen Analysis: For any flagged announcements, use the Keyword search on the full text to find terms like “minority stake,” “strategic rationale,” or “synergies” to understand the intent behind the transactions.³
• Strategic Outcome: This provides the evidence to aggregate seemingly unrelated transactions into a single, compelling narrative of market concentration to be presented to regulators, positioning COCOO as a vigilant market watchdog.

Playbook B: The “Vulnerability & USP” Probe

• Objective: To identify corporate distress or weakness that creates an opportunity for COCOO to offer mediation services or to gain a competitive advantage in a public tender by highlighting a competitor’s instability.
• Execution:
  1. Target Entity: Enter the name of a specific competitor or target company in the Company name field.²
  2. Filter for Distress Signals: Select Categories such as “Results and Trading Reports” and “Executive Changes”.²
  3. Keyword Search (Headline): Use the Headline contains keyword field to search for terms like "profit warning", "trading update", "strategic review", "resignation".
  4. Keyword Search (Full Text): Conduct a full-text Keyword search for more nuanced terms like "challenging market", "disappointing", "investigation", "delay", or "dispute".³
  5. Analyze Insider Actions: Specifically search the “Director’s Dealings” category for significant share sales by Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibilities (PDMRs), which can signal a lack of internal confidence.²
• Strategic Outcome: The compiled evidence of distress forms the foundation of an Unsolicited Proposal (USP) to the company’s board or major shareholders, offering COCOO’s services to mediate a turnaround or resolve a dispute. Alternatively, it provides concrete evidence to a public contracting authority that a competitor is a high-risk choice.

Playbook C: The “Sector-Wide Barometer”

• Objective: To gain a high-level strategic overview of an entire industry’s health, trends, and key activities, informing COCOO’s market entry strategy or large-scale public interest campaigns.
• Execution:
  1. Define Sector: Select a Sector of interest (e.g., “Utilities,” “Retail”).²
  2. Broaden Scope: Set a wide Time span (e.g., 2-3 years) and select All Categories.²
  3. Analyze Volume & Type: Assess the frequency of different announcement types. A high volume of “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals” points to consolidation. A spike in “Director’s Dealings” (sales) across multiple companies suggests sector-wide pessimism. A flurry of negative “Trading Updates” indicates systemic headwinds.
  4. Identify Key Actors: Note which companies are most active in M&A, which are issuing the most positive/negative updates, and which directors are moving between companies.
• Strategic Outcome: This macro-level intelligence allows COCOO to speak with authority on the state of an entire industry, identify systemic market failures ripe for intervention, and tailor public contract bids with a demonstrable, data-backed understanding of the sector’s challenges and opportunities.

By applying these structured playbooks, Investegate is transformed from a passive archive into a proactive intelligence engine, systematically generating the evidence and opportunities needed to advance COCOO’s strategic and commercial goals.

SOP: Activating EU Trade Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

• Platform: EU Trade Enforcement and Protection Portal (policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection_en)

• Visual Interface Analysis:

  • Yes, the screenshot on page 3 of the ==LINKS ACTION==.pdf file shows the main landing page for this “Enforcement and protection” section. ¹ The page is designed as a central hub, with clear, separate sections for key enforcement functions including:
    • Chief Trade Enforcement Officer ²
    • Dispute settlement ³
    • Implementing and enforcing EU trade agreements ⁴
    • Investment screening ⁵
    • Protecting EU creations, inventions and designs ⁶

• Official Portal Description & Rules (from Web Search):

  • Yes, my research and the text on the screenshot itself define the rules and purpose of this portal. The official description is as follows:
    • Rule 1: Overall Mandate: “The European Union enforces trade rules both within the EU itself and in the EU’s export markets.” ⁷ This establishes the broad, dual jurisdiction of the Commission’s enforcement arm.
    • Rule 2: The Role of the CTEO: The portal establishes the function of the “Chief Trade Enforcement Officer” to strengthen the “implementation and enforcement of EU trade policy.” ⁸
    • Rule 3: Dispute Settlement Function: The portal states that the EU uses various tools, including formal dispute settlement, to “enforce the commitments it negotiates… under international trade agreements.” ⁹
    • Rule 4: Investment Screening Framework: The portal confirms the existence of an “EU framework for investment screening” as part of its commitment to protect its companies, workers, and citizens. ¹⁰
• Advanced Search Strategies & Information Discovery Tips:

  This SOP provides advanced strategies for leveraging these official enforcement mechanisms.

  • Tip 1: Strategic Petitioning of the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO).
    • The CTEO is a high-level political post. To be effective, a complaint must be framed in terms of strategic importance to the EU. Before submitting, it is our standard procedure to research the current CTEO’s public speeches and stated priorities.
    • Action: We will tailor our complaint to align with the CTEO’s agenda. If their current focus is on “digital trade” or “green energy supply chains,” we will frame our adversary’s anti-competitive conduct as a direct threat to that specific EU policy goal. This elevates our complaint from a simple commercial dispute to a high-profile test case for the CTEO’s office.
  • Tip 2: “Forum Shopping” for the Optimal Dispute Mechanism.
    • This portal provides access to multiple enforcement tools. It is a mistake to assume they are all the same. The standard model requires a “Forum Selection Memo” for each case.
    • Action: We will analyze the pros and cons of each path. A bilateral dispute settlement case under a specific trade agreement might be faster. A full WTO dispute has more political weight but is slower. A Trade Barrier Regulation complaint might be best for tackling a specific regulatory hurdle. Our memo will recommend the optimal forum based on the specific facts of the case and our desired outcome (e.g., speed vs. political impact).
  • Tip 3: Using the Investment Screening Framework as an Offensive Tool.
    • This is a highly advanced tactic. If we discover that the adversary company in our case is planning an acquisition or major investment within the EU, we can use the investment screening mechanism as a tool to disrupt their plans.
    • Action: We will prepare and submit a formal observation to the relevant national investment screening authority (and to DG Trade). Our submission will argue that the adversary, due to its history of anti-competitive conduct or reliance on illegal subsidies, may pose a risk to the security or public order of the EU, and their investment should be scrutinized or blocked. This can create significant leverage by disrupting their other corporate activities.
• Standard Model for Application to Cocoo Cases:

  This model provides a structured approach to escalating a commercial dispute to a state-to-state level.

  • Step 1: Case Categorization. For any new international case, our first step is to use this portal to categorize the harm. Is it a breach of a specific trade agreement clause? A regulatory trade barrier? An intellectual property issue? The structure of this portal provides the official categories.
  • Step 2: Draft the “Escalation Briefing.” Based on the categorization, our standard procedure is to draft a formal “Escalation Briefing” addressed to the office of the CTEO. This briefing will outline the facts, identify the specific breach of EU trade law, and recommend a specific enforcement pathway based on our “Forum Selection Memo.”
  • Step 3: Monitor Active Cases for Precedent. We will continuously monitor the lists of active dispute settlement and trade barrier cases available through this portal. This provides real-time intelligence on the Commission’s arguments, timelines, and success rates, which informs our own strategy and manages expectations.

• Integration with Cocoo’s Core Objectives (Mediation & Tendering):

  • Standard Leverage for Mediation:
    • The ability to credibly threaten a state-to-state trade dispute is our ultimate leverage in any mediation with a foreign entity. Our standard practice will be to present the “Escalation Briefing” to our adversary during negotiations. We will make it clear that if a commercial settlement is not reached, our next step is to formally petition the European Commission to launch an enforcement action against their home country. This transforms the negotiation from a private matter to one with serious diplomatic and economic consequences for them.
  • Standard Support for Tendering:
    • A thorough understanding of a target country’s existing trade disputes and enforcement issues is critical for intelligent tendering. We will use this portal to research the target country before submitting a bid.
    • Our proposal will then include a section titled “Navigating the EU Enforcement Landscape,” where we can state: “We have analyzed the existing trade relationship between the EU and [Target Country] and note the ongoing issues concerning [e.g., customs procedures]. Our proposal includes a dedicated project management workflow designed to mitigate these specific risks, ensuring smooth delivery.” This demonstrates a superior level of strategic awareness and diligence.

This analysis is complete.

SOP: Country-Specific Trade Intelligence & Opportunity Analysis

• Platform: EU Trade Relationships by Country & Region (policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions_en)

• Visual Interface Analysis:

  • The ==LINKS ACTION==.pdf file does not contain a screenshot of this specific webpage. The live portal presents information via an interactive map and an alphabetical list of countries, leading to dedicated pages for each country or region.

• Official Portal Description & Rules (from Web Search):

  • Yes, my research confirms the purpose of this portal section. Its rules and functions are defined by the content it provides for each country. The official description is as follows:
    • “The EU has a large network of trade agreements with countries and regions all over the world. Find out about these agreements, including their legal texts and factsheets, and check the state of play of negotiations for new agreements.”
  • For each country, the portal provides access to:
    • Rule 1: The Legal Text: The full, official text of the trade agreements.
    • Rule 2: Trade Statistics: Detailed data on imports, exports, and the overall trade balance between the EU and that country.
    • Rule 3: Implementation Reports & Documents: Reports from committees and working groups on the status of the agreement’s implementation, including any issues or disputes.
• Advanced Search Strategies & Information Discovery Tips:

  This SOP moves beyond a simple review, providing advanced tips for extracting actionable intelligence.

  • Tip 1: Forensic Keyword Analysis of Legal Texts.
    • Do not just read the trade agreement; perform a forensic keyword search on the official PDF. Once you have navigated to the specific country page and downloaded the legal text, use the find function (Ctrl+F) for terms that represent legal risk and opportunity.
    • Search for: "state-owned enterprise", "competition policy", "subsidy", "intellectual property", "government procurement", "arbitration", and "dispute settlement".
    • Action: Create a table listing every clause containing these keywords. This instantly creates a “Legal Risk & Rights” summary for that specific country under its agreement with the EU.
  • Tip 2: Statistical “Weakness” and “Dependency” Analysis.
    • Use the “Trade Statistics” section for more than just an overview. Download the raw data.
    • Action: Identify the top 5 sectors where the target country has the largest trade deficit with the EU. A country with a large, persistent deficit in a key area (e.g., high-tech machinery) may be highly receptive to a tender proposal that includes “local capacity building” or “technology transfer” in that specific sector. Conversely, identify the sectors where the country is most dependent on exports to the EU. Any trade dispute in these sectors poses a significant economic threat to them, giving us leverage.
  • Tip 3: Reading Between the Lines of Implementation Reports.
    • The most valuable intelligence often lies in the “Implementation Reports” or minutes from committee meetings. These documents contain the real-world story of the trade relationship.
    • Action: Search these reports for discussions of “non-tariff barriers,” “regulatory divergence,” “administrative hurdles,” or “complaints”. This is where you will find evidence of how the country actually behaves, which can be very different from the formal commitments in the legal text. This information is critical for assessing the real risk of doing business there.
• Standard Model for Application to Cocoo Cases:

  This model ensures that for any new international case, we create a complete “Country Trade Dossier.”

  • Step 1: Create the Dossier. For the [Target Country], navigate to its specific page on this portal. Download the full legal text of the trade agreement, the latest trade statistics data, and the last two implementation reports.
  • Step 2: Conduct the “Legal Risk & Rights” Analysis. Use the forensic keyword search tip to populate a summary of our rights and the specific legal risks under the agreement.
  • Step 3: Conduct the “Economic & Political” Analysis. Use the statistical and implementation report tips to analyze the country’s economic dependencies and real-world business climate. This provides a clear picture of their negotiating weaknesses and strategic priorities.

• Integration with Cocoo’s Core Objectives (Mediation & Tendering):

  • Standard Leverage for Mediation:
    • Our ability to quote the specific Article of a binding trade agreement that an adversary’s conduct violates gives our position immense legal authority. We can state, for example, “Your actions are in breach of Article X.Y of the EU-[Target Country] Association Agreement regarding the treatment of state-owned enterprises.” This elevates the dispute from a commercial disagreement to a breach of international law, creating powerful pressure to settle.
  • Standard Support for Tendering:
    • This detailed intelligence allows us to craft highly sophisticated proposals. Our tender document will be tailored to the specific economic needs and political realities identified in our “Country Trade Dossier.”
    • Our proposal will include a section titled “Alignment with the EU-[Target Country] Strategic Economic Partnership,” where we will explicitly state how our project helps the country achieve its goals under the trade agreement (e.g., by building capacity in a deficit sector). This transforms our bid from a simple commercial offer into a strategic proposal for mutual benefit, making it far more likely to be accepted.

This analysis is complete.

SOP: Country-Specific Trade Intelligence & Opportunity Analysis

• Platform: EU Trade Relationships by Country & Region (policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions_en)

• Visual Interface Analysis:

  • The ==LINKS ACTION==.pdf file does not contain a screenshot of this specific webpage. The live portal presents information via an interactive map and an alphabetical list of countries, leading to dedicated pages for each country or region.

• Official Portal Description & Rules (from Web Search):

  • Yes, my research confirms the purpose of this portal section. Its rules and functions are defined by the content it provides for each country. The official description is as follows:
    • “The EU has a large network of trade agreements with countries and regions all over the world. Find out about these agreements, including their legal texts and factsheets, and check the state of play of negotiations for new agreements.”
  • For each country, the portal provides access to:
    • Rule 1: The Legal Text: The full, official text of the trade agreements.
    • Rule 2: Trade Statistics: Detailed data on imports, exports, and the overall trade balance between the EU and that country.
    • Rule 3: Implementation Reports & Documents: Reports from committees and working groups on the status of the agreement’s implementation, including any issues or disputes.
• Advanced Search Strategies & Information Discovery Tips:

  This SOP moves beyond a simple review, providing advanced tips for extracting actionable intelligence.

  • Tip 1: Forensic Keyword Analysis of Legal Texts.
    • Do not just read the trade agreement; perform a forensic keyword search on the official PDF. Once you have navigated to the specific country page and downloaded the legal text, use the find function (Ctrl+F) for terms that represent legal risk and opportunity.
    • Search for: "state-owned enterprise", "competition policy", "subsidy", "intellectual property", "government procurement", "arbitration", and "dispute settlement".
    • Action: Create a table listing every clause containing these keywords. This instantly creates a “Legal Risk & Rights” summary for that specific country under its agreement with the EU.
  • Tip 2: Statistical “Weakness” and “Dependency” Analysis.
    • Use the “Trade Statistics” section for more than just an overview. Download the raw data.
    • Action: Identify the top 5 sectors where the target country has the largest trade deficit with the EU. A country with a large, persistent deficit in a key area (e.g., high-tech machinery) may be highly receptive to a tender proposal that includes “local capacity building” or “technology transfer” in that specific sector. Conversely, identify the sectors where the country is most dependent on exports to the EU. Any trade dispute in these sectors poses a significant economic threat to them, giving us leverage.
  • Tip 3: Reading Between the Lines of Implementation Reports.
    • The most valuable intelligence often lies in the “Implementation Reports” or minutes from committee meetings. These documents contain the real-world story of the trade relationship.
    • Action: Search these reports for discussions of “non-tariff barriers,” “regulatory divergence,” “administrative hurdles,” or “complaints”. This is where you will find evidence of how the country actually behaves, which can be very different from the formal commitments in the legal text. This information is critical for assessing the real risk of doing business there.
• Standard Model for Application to Cocoo Cases:

  This model ensures that for any new international case, we create a complete “Country Trade Dossier.”

  • Step 1: Create the Dossier. For the [Target Country], navigate to its specific page on this portal. Download the full legal text of the trade agreement, the latest trade statistics data, and the last two implementation reports.
  • Step 2: Conduct the “Legal Risk & Rights” Analysis. Use the forensic keyword search tip to populate a summary of our rights and the specific legal risks under the agreement.
  • Step 3: Conduct the “Economic & Political” Analysis. Use the statistical and implementation report tips to analyze the country’s economic dependencies and real-world business climate. This provides a clear picture of their negotiating weaknesses and strategic priorities.

• Integration with Cocoo’s Core Objectives (Mediation & Tendering):

  • Standard Leverage for Mediation:
    • Our ability to quote the specific Article of a binding trade agreement that an adversary’s conduct violates gives our position immense legal authority. We can state, for example, “Your actions are in breach of Article X.Y of the EU-[Target Country] Association Agreement regarding the treatment of state-owned enterprises.” This elevates the dispute from a commercial disagreement to a breach of international law, creating powerful pressure to settle.
  • Standard Support for Tendering:
    • This detailed intelligence allows us to craft highly sophisticated proposals. Our tender document will be tailored to the specific economic needs and political realities identified in our “Country Trade Dossier.”
    • Our proposal will include a section titled “Alignment with the EU-[Target Country] Strategic Economic Partnership,” where we will explicitly state how our project helps the country achieve its goals under the trade agreement (e.g., by building capacity in a deficit sector). This transforms our bid from a simple commercial offer into a strategic proposal for mutual benefit, making it far more likely to be accepted.

This analysis is complete.

Standard Operating Procedure: Precedent Analysis using the EU State Aid Case Database

• Platform: European Commission State Aid Case Search (competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA)

• Visual Interface Analysis:

  • No specific screenshot of this case search database was included in the ==LINKS ACTION==.pdf file. The platform is a database with a standard search form containing multiple filter fields to query the case repository.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality (from Web Search):

  • Yes, my research has confirmed the official rules and capabilities of this database. Our standard procedures are based on the direct application of these functions. The official search rules and capabilities are as follows:
    • Rule 1: Case Instrument Filtering. The database is designed to be filtered by the legal instrument of the case. The link provided (?caseInstrument=SA) automatically applies the filter for “SA” (State Aid), ensuring all searches are isolated to the correct case type. Other instruments include ‘AT’ (Antitrust) and ‘M’ (Mergers).
    • Rule 2: Member State Filtering. The search function allows for filtering by the specific EU Member State that is the subject of the State Aid measure.
    • Rule 3: Economic Sector (NACE Code) Filtering. The search function uses the official EU-wide NACE code classification system. This allows for precise filtering of cases related to a specific industry (e.g., ‘D’ for Electricity and Gas) or sub-industry.
    • Rule 4: Keyword Searching. The database provides a full-text keyword search capability, allowing for searches of terms within the titles and public documents of the case files.
    • Rule 5: Document Access. The platform provides public access to key case documents, primarily the non-confidential versions of the “Opening Decision” (which outlines the Commission’s initial concerns) and the “Final Decision” (which contains the definitive legal ruling).
• Standard Model for Application to Cocoo Cases:This SOP outlines the standard, repeatable process for using this database to find binding legal precedents for any State Aid case Cocoo undertakes.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 1 (Instrument Filtering):
    • Model Application: It is Cocoo’s standard procedure to always begin our research using a link that pre-filters for the “SA” instrument. This ensures maximum efficiency and guarantees that the search results are precisely relevant to the State Aid case at hand.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 2 & 3 (Member State & NACE Filtering):
    • Model Application: For any case, our initial search is a “Country & Sector Search.” We will filter by the specific [Member State] involved AND the specific [NACE Code] for the relevant industry. This creates a complete dossier of all prior State Aid cases in that exact market, which is the essential starting point for our analysis.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 4 (Keyword Searching):
    • Model Application: After the initial Country & Sector Search, we will conduct a broader, EU-wide keyword search to find analogous cases. Our standard protocol is to search for cases involving the specific [Case-Specific Technology or Market Issue]. This allows us to find the Commission’s definitive legal reasoning on a particular issue, even if it was decided in the context of a different Member State.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 5 (Document Access):
    • Model Application: For every relevant precedent identified, it is Cocoo’s standard procedure to download both the Opening Decision and the Final Decision. Our legal team will then create a “Case Brief” for each, summarizing the facts, the Commission’s legal reasoning, and the final outcome. This creates our internal library of precedents.

• Integration with Cocoo’s Core Objectives (Mediation & Tendering):

  • Standard Leverage for Mediation:
    • This SOP ensures that Cocoo enters any mediation armed with a dossier of official, binding precedents from the Commission itself. Our standard negotiating tactic is to present the other side with the Final Decision from a previous case with an identical legal issue and state: “The Commission’s legal test for this matter was settled in Case SA.XXXXX. Your position is legally untenable under this established precedent.” This objective, evidence-based approach makes it extremely difficult for an opponent to maintain a weak legal argument.
  • Standard Support for Tendering:
    • This SOP is critical for de-risking our public contract proposals. Our standard model involves using this database to research approved State Aid cases in the relevant sector. We then reverse-engineer our proposal to mirror the structure and features of projects that we know the Commission has already deemed legally compliant.
    • Every relevant tender we submit will include a section titled “Alignment with European Commission Precedent,” which will state: “The competitive and transparent structure of this proposal is modelled on the principles laid out by the Commission in its final approval decision in Case SA.YYYYY ([Name of a relevant approved case]).” This positions Cocoo’s offer as a pre-validated, legally-sound solution, making it a safe and compelling choice for any public authority.

This analysis is complete.

Standard Operating Procedure: Leveraging the EU State Aid Portal for Competition Cases

• Platform: European Commission State Aid Portal (competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid_en)

• Visual Interface Analysis:

  • The ==LINKS ACTION==.pdf file you provided does not contain a screenshot of this specific State Aid Portal landing page. The platform is an informational gateway, designed with standard EU Commission branding to provide access to legal and policy documents.

• Official Portal Description & Rules (from Web Search):

  • Yes, my research provides the following descriptions which serve as the rules and functions of this portal. The standard model below is based on the systematic application of these functions.
  • The portal’s official purpose and components are described as follows:
    • The Legal Framework: The portal provides access to the definitive legislation governing State aid, primarily “Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU),” which form the legal basis for all State aid control.
    • Guidelines: The Commission publishes “Guidelines” that clarify how it will apply the rules in specific sectors or for certain types of aid. A key example is the “Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy (CEEAG),” which sets out the conditions for aid in this sector to be considered compatible with the single market.
    • The Complaint Procedure: The portal outlines the official procedure for lodging a complaint about unlawful State aid and provides access to the standardized complaint form.
    • The State Aid Scoreboard: This is an annual publication that “provides a comprehensive overview of State aid expenditure in the EU… based on the reports provided by the Member States.”
• Standard Model for Application to Cocoo Cases:

  This SOP outlines the standard process for using the State Aid Portal to build and prosecute any case involving an illegal subsidy, ensuring our arguments are always grounded in the European Commission’s own legal framework.

  • Standard Action based on Rule 1: “The Legal Framework”
    • Model Application: In any case involving a potential illegal subsidy, the first action is to use this portal to access the definitive legal texts, primarily Articles 107-109 TFEU. Our initial case assessment memorandum will always begin with an analysis of how the facts of the case meet the four-part test for State aid derived from Article 107(1).
  • Standard Action based on Rule 2: “Sector-Specific Guidelines”
    • Model Application: For any case in a specific economic sector (e.g., energy, transport, finance), it is Cocoo’s standard procedure to immediately locate and download the relevant State Aid Guidelines from this portal. We will then create a “Compliance Checklist” based on these guidelines. Our primary legal argument will be structured around this checklist, demonstrating point-by-point how the subsidy in question fails to meet the Commission’s own published criteria for compatibility.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 3: “The State Aid Scoreboard”
    • Model Application: As part of our standard initial assessment of any state aid case, we will use the Scoreboard found on this portal to conduct a comparative analysis. We will analyze the target Member State’s aid expenditure in the relevant sector and compare it to the EU average and to its closest peers. This data will be used to argue whether the aid measure is an exceptional and highly distortive outlier.
  • Standard Action based on Rule 4: “The Complaint Procedure”
    • Model Application: It is Cocoo’s standard procedure to use the official, standardized complaint form found on this portal to draft our formal complaint. This ensures procedural correctness from the outset. The fully-drafted complaint form serves as a key piece of leverage in any pre-litigation negotiations or mediation, as it represents a credible and imminent threat of formal regulatory action.

• Integration with Cocoo’s Core Objectives (Mediation & Tendering):

  • Standard Leverage for Mediation:
    • This model ensures that in any mediation, our arguments are not based on opinion but on the Commission’s own published “rulebook.” Our standard negotiating tactic is to directly quote from the relevant Guidelines to demonstrate the illegality of the opponent’s subsidy. This objective, evidence-based approach makes it extremely difficult for the opposing party to defend their position and creates strong pressure to settle.
  • Standard Support for Tendering:
    • Cocoo’s standard methodology for any public tender where subsidies may be involved is to proactively structure our proposal to be fully compliant with the relevant State Aid Guidelines found on this portal. Every tender we submit in such a context will include a dedicated “State Aid Compliance” section. This positions our proposal as a pre-vetted, legally robust, and safe solution for the government authority, giving us a significant competitive advantage.

This analysis is complete.