The co-investor with an undisclosed problem.

The brief

A family office had been introduced to a proposed co-investor through a trusted intermediary. The individual's track record was well presented, the deal terms were reasonable, and the overall proposition appeared sound. Before the family office committed, the principal wanted independent verification — not a reference check, but a genuine look at who they were co-investing with. The instruction was to surface anything material that the introduction process might have missed or obscured.

The work

We reviewed the co-investor's professional history, corporate affiliations, litigation record, and known business relationships, working across open sources, court records, and lawful secondary materials in the jurisdictions where the individual operated. Two findings emerged that the co-investor had not disclosed in his representations to the family office.

The first was a live commercial dispute in a foreign jurisdiction, the subject matter of which overlapped with the sector the deal concerned. The second was a pre-existing relationship between the co-investor and a counterparty in the proposed transaction — a relationship that, on its face, created a conflict of interest the family office had not been told about. Neither finding was concealed in any technical sense; both were discoverable. Neither had been volunteered.

The outcome

The family office received a clear memorandum setting out both findings with their sources. Armed with that picture, the principal returned to the co-investor ahead of signing. The co-investor acknowledged both matters when confronted with the evidence. The deal proceeded on revised terms that addressed the conflict and included representations covering the outstanding dispute. The family office committed with its eyes open rather than in the dark.

Names, places, sums and dates are altered to protect client confidentiality. We never confirm a client or a case; this is the kind of problem we solve.