In the third quarter of 2025, the firm intervened on behalf of a founding executive facing pre-textual termination and forfeiture of his equity on the eve of his company’s $10M merger. With $233K in vested equity on the line, we immediately held the company to task challenging their reading of the relevant equity agreements and vesting language. After a 72-hour blitz, the company caved and awarded the client his full equity stake which converted into a $1.14M cash payout. Total execution time: 7 days.

A mid-level private equity client was terminated from a $10B private equity firm under circumstances implicating complex cross-border US and Italian labor laws involving unauthorized work and “trattamento di fine rapporto”, or italian statutory severance.

Despite 5 years of bonus entitlement and no documented performance issues, the firm withheld the client’s 2026 bonus citing “performance” issues and the ‘discretionary' nature of the firm’s bonus policy.

We then highlighted exposure the firm hadn’t considered or priced into the severance offer. Among other issues, the firm’s relocation of the client to Milan for a 10-month engagement created cross-border jurisdictional hooks related to work-visa noncompliance the firm had not considered, including an additional source of severance compensation—TFR, trattamento di Fine rapporto, Italy’s mandatory deferred severance pay. Employers are legally required to set aside a portion of earnings each month, which is paid to employees at termination. This created a statutory entitlement that, if exercised, would cast light on a number of irregularities related to the Milan assignment and the firm’s disclosure obligations.

After a month of negotiations, we secured a 228% increase from the original $43,000 offer resulting in a severance package valued at $141,000 including improved carry interest from 60% to 100%.

Facing escalating demands from plaintiff’s counsel—first for $120,000, then $300,000—our client was positioned for an expensive, multi-front war of attrition. We entered at a critical moment to prevent a poorly framed response from establishing a $120,000 recovery floor.

Through negotiations, we highlighted plaintiff’s rocky road to recovery and previewed the legal infirmities in its position. The momentum behind plaintiff’s escalating threats disappeared. Two months later, plaintiff filed suit for just $60,000, asserting only a breach-of-contract claim and omitting the account-stated claim it had successfully pursued in other cases.

Threat landscape reduced by 80%.