"Current."
"Employee benefits?"
"No interruption expected."
She exhaled.
"Good."
The attorney studied her.
"You're taking this remarkably calmly."
She looked at him.
"I'm not calm."
He hesitated.
She continued.
"I'm choosing not to panic in front of the people who need me to make decisions."
He nodded.
Then asked what she wanted to do next.
She looked toward the city skyline.
"Find out exactly what was promised."
She paused.
"And find out who believed they could make those promises using my mother's company."
But before the investigators could complete that work, the hotel chairman made a move no one expected.
He contacted the restaurant group's commercial director directly.
He offered a private solution.
The restaurant company could resume negotiations.
The hotel group would provide additional short-term financing.
Certain disputed consulting expenses could be restructured.
And the new partnership would proceed under a revised timetable.
There was only one condition.
The chairwoman had to resign from the transaction committee.
The commercial director stared at the proposal.
Then asked, "Why?"
The hotel chairman's representative answered smoothly.
"Because the relationship has become personal."
The director hesitated.
"She's the controlling shareholder."
"Of course."
"And chairwoman."
"Yes."
The representative smiled.
"Then let the board appoint someone more objective to lead the negotiation."
The director considered.
He was not an evil man.
He had worked hard for the company.
Believed in expansion.
Wanted his department to succeed.
But he had become increasingly frustrated with the chairwoman's caution.
He believed she was allowing one unpleasant dinner to jeopardize the deal.
And he believed the hotel group offered opportunities no competitor could match.
So he forwarded the proposal to two directors.
Without copying the chairwoman.
That decision would have serious consequences.
Because the proposal included a second document.
A document describing how the restaurant group's voting structure might be modified if the chairwoman continued blocking the agreement.
The commercial director did not immediately recognize the danger.
He saw it as a governance discussion.
But one of the independent directors understood exactly what it was.
He had served on corporate boards for three decades.
He knew the difference between a negotiation strategy and an attempt to pressure a controlling shareholder.
He forwarded the document to the company's general counsel.
The general counsel reviewed it.
Then called the chairwoman.
"I think you need to see this."
She opened the attachment.
Read the first page.
Then the second.
Her expression became still.
The proposal described a possible reorganization involving new preferred shares and certain voting rights.
It suggested that the restaurant company could accelerate its international expansion by accepting investment terms that diluted existing shareholder control.
Such structures could be legitimate when properly negotiated and approved.
But this proposal had been circulated privately to board members while the transaction was suspended and the document investigation remained unresolved.