The problem is the starting point. Not the service.

The situation

A technology group’s Middle East subsidiary had contracted to serve an end customer. Its cloud vendor was hit by ransomware, had no cyber insurance, and the attackers’ dark-web notice named the subsidiary’s email address as the point of breach.

Who wanted what

• The cloud vendor wanted to audit the subsidiary and shift the blame.
• The internal technology and cloud teams each wanted to avoid being blamed.
• The end customer’s operations were down. It wanted them back, even if that meant paying the ransom, and a lawsuit was a real risk.
• Local law required a disclosure, but it wasn’t yet settled who had to make it.

The one priority

Keep the company’s liability at zero, now and later.

What a standard playbook would have done

Accept the vendor’s audit to look cooperative, make the disclosure out of caution, and get drawn into the ransom decision. Each step quietly concedes liability.

What we did

• Placed the disclosure duty where the breach happened: on the vendor’s cloud.
• Allowed no third-party audit without a court order.
• Left the ransom decision entirely with the end customer.
• Ended the internal blame game by setting out each team’s role and what it could say to outsiders.
• Wrote the immediate crisis-management plan on the spot.

The outcome

The company came out with no liability, then or since.

The situation

A pharma-software company’s former technical collaborator claimed he owned its software, demanded half its revenue, and began approaching its customers directly.

Who wanted what

• The collaborator wanted ownership and a revenue share.
• The company’s largest pharma customer wanted validated software that kept working.
• The team wanted certainty about who they worked for.
• The founder’s instinct was to prove the code was his.

The one priority

Keep every customer served, whoever wins the ownership argument.

What a standard playbook would have done

Litigate ownership first, leaving the business frozen and the customer caught in the middle while a court decided.

What we did

• Built an independent way to keep delivering, so his copy of the code stopped being a single point of failure.
• Kept the customer focused on delivery, not on the dispute.
• Secured the team and strengthened the contracts and brand protection around the business.

The outcome so far

The company moved from defending itself to having options, with its customer relationship intact.

The situation

An Indian company held the exclusive distributorship for an Italian manufacturer of heavy infrastructure equipment. Over three years it built the brand in India, winning named infrastructure clients and government orders, including from national highway projects. Then a US global group acquired the Italian principal.

Who wanted what

• The new US owner wanted to consolidate under its own brand and channels.
• The Italian team wanted to keep the relationship, while now answering to a new parent.
• Infrastructure and government customers needed supply and support on live orders.
• The client needed to keep what it had spent three years building.

The one priority

Protect the market the client built, whoever owns the brand.

What a standard playbook would have done

Either fight the acquirer over the contract, or accept whatever terms the new owner offered. One burns the relationship; the other gives away the market.

What we did

• Secured the exclusive distributorship first, before anything else could move.
• Kept the Italian team committed to the relationship through the transition.
• Built operational, strategic and contractual guardrails so the brand built in India could not simply be dissolved.
• Ring-fenced third-party contracts, including live government orders.
• Designed a transition plan that worked for every party.

The outcome

The client kept everything it had built over three years, and the new owner inherited a working Indian market.

The situation

Global technology vendors opened compliance audits against two marketing and creative agencies we advise, run through third-party audit firms. Audits like these rest on assumptions that tend to turn almost any gap into a shortfall, and they raise real intellectual-property questions along the way.

Who wanted what

• The vendors wanted their revenue protected, and a signal sent to the market.
• The auditors wanted broad access: every entity, every system, several years of data.
• The clients’ teams wanted the disruption to stop without conceding anything.
• Leadership wanted no liability and no damaged relationship with a vendor it depends on.

The one priority

Resolve it before it becomes an audit, with no liability and everything above board.

What a standard playbook would have done

Hand over whatever data the auditor asks for and negotiate the bill afterwards. By then, the assumptions have already become findings.

What we did

• Identified the vendor’s real interests, pain points and the levers that mattered on both sides.
• Separated genuine audit questions from assumptions that needed clarifying.
• Held the line on everything beyond the scope of the contract.
• Dealt directly with the underlying IP questions.
• Engineered a fair resolution that met the vendor’s legitimate requirements.

The outcome

Each audit either never went ahead or was closed at the pre-audit stage, with no liability and everything above board.