The resulting agreement required special consent for certain transfers and included ongoing obligations connected to workforce benefits.
Harold had been present during some of those discussions.
He remembered Lorraine speaking to a room full of executives who wanted her to accept weaker terms.
She didn't shout.
She didn't threaten.
She placed a maintenance report on the table and asked who would respond when a hospital shipment experienced a refrigeration failure at three in the morning.
Nobody gave a satisfactory answer.
Harold laughed softly when he told the story.
"Your mother could make a whole boardroom uncomfortable with one sensible question."
Nia smiled through tears.
"She still can, apparently."
The Asterion investigation continued beyond the disputed waiver.
Outside counsel examined what managers knew, when concerns were raised, and whether financial representations presented to lenders and directors were supported.
The review found serious control failures within the acquisition process.
Some employees believed the waiver had been authenticated because senior executives repeatedly described it as settled.
Others assumed legal had independently approved the document.
The legal team, in turn, had initially relied on representations from the transaction team about the file's provenance.
The problem wasn't that no one had responsibility.
It was that responsibility had been passed between teams without anyone establishing the underlying facts.
Elliot's role remained particularly concerning.
Records showed that he received warnings about the waiver's origin before the dinner and continued pressing staff to treat the transaction as ready to close.
The independent investigators also identified communications indicating that members of his team had been asked to recreate transaction documentation from older source material.
The question of individual intent required careful examination.
There was a difference between making a negligent assumption, knowingly relying on an invalid document, and directing someone to fabricate one.
The review referred relevant findings to appropriate authorities and corporate decision-makers.
Elliot was ultimately removed from his executive position after the applicable internal process.
Further legal proceedings concerning specific alleged misconduct continued separately.
The company didn't announce that every allegation had been proven.
But it acknowledged that the document should never have been used as it was.
And the failure reached far beyond one employee.
Victor faced a different reckoning.
The investigation did not establish that he personally created Lorraine's signature.
But it found that he had received repeated warnings and pressured the transaction team to maintain a timetable that assumed the disputed consent was valid.
The independent directors also examined his conduct toward employees who raised concerns.
Several accounts described a pattern in which executives feared presenting unfavorable information because Victor might treat the messenger as disloyal or incompetent.
That culture had consequences.