Or the signature might have been accessed for an unrelated purpose.
The answer required evidence.
But the risk was serious enough for counsel to notify the relevant corporate authorities and strengthen document authentication controls.
The chief financial officer was asked to participate in an independent interview.
He arrived with legal representation.
The interview began professionally.
He acknowledged using the document system.
He acknowledged authorizing consultants.
He denied intending to alter the company's ownership without permission.
Then the investigator asked about the unauthorized appendix.
He paused.
"I believed it reflected the chairwoman's position."
The interviewer looked at him.
"What led you to that belief?"
"The commercial director."
The investigator made a note.
"Did you independently verify shareholder approval?"
He hesitated.
"Not personally."
"Why not?"
The chief financial officer looked down.
"We were under considerable pressure to complete the agreement."
The investigator waited.
The executive continued.
"The hotel group warned it might withdraw its financing."
"Did the restaurant group require that financing to remain operational?"
He hesitated.
"Not immediately."
The interviewer nodded.
"Then why was there urgency?"
The chief financial officer looked toward his attorney.
For a moment, he seemed to reconsider.
Then he spoke quietly.
"Because certain executives had already committed to expenses associated with the expansion."
The investigator leaned forward.
"What expenses?"
The chief financial officer swallowed.
"Development deposits. Advisory payments. Preliminary site costs."
"Who authorized them?"
The executive looked away.
The room became silent.
Then he whispered, "Some were authorized before the board completed its review."
The independent investigator made another note.
The chief financial officer's attorney requested a pause.
The interview stopped.
But the admission changed the direction of the inquiry.
The company had not merely been negotiating a risky agreement.
Some executives had apparently begun spending money as though approval were already guaranteed.
The unauthorized appendix might have been designed to protect those commitments.
Or to shift the consequences onto shareholders if the expansion failed.
The chairwoman received a summary later that evening.
She read it carefully.
Then asked her general counsel, "How much has been committed?"
He answered.
"More than we initially believed."
She closed her eyes.
"How much?"
He provided the preliminary figure.
It was large enough to affect the company's planned capital spending for the year.
The chairwoman looked down.
Her mother had spent years building the restaurants through careful expansion.
The chief financial officer had apparently allowed preliminary commitments to grow faster than the company could responsibly approve them.
And someone might have been using the hotel deal to conceal that mistake.
She looked toward the attorney.
"Can the company unwind the commitments?"
"Some."
"And the rest?"
"That will depend on the contracts and the facts."
She nodded slowly.
Then asked, "What about payroll?"
"Protected."
"Supplier payments?"