One of our most recent projects had the following initial situation:
A tech start-up (low single digit million sales, high burn rate in a challenging market environment) was suddenly faced with an acid test: the investors – a mix of VCs and business angels – suddenly disagreed on the future course after a successful funding round.
Three camps emerged:
1) “All-in” for maximum scaling & 10x return
2) Quick exit
3) Asset deal & orderly wind-up
👉 The founding team was caught between multiple divergent positions- and time was running out.
Our task: find a strategic solution with a clear, financially viable implementation plan.
Our findings:
🔹 Ready for exit? Unfortunately not – neither as an asset deal nor as a distress sale
🔹 Best option: realigned development of the company but with a sharpened focus to transform a currently illiquid asset into a liquid asset
🔹 A fact-based approach helped to objectify the debate & find a consensus.
Result:
Joint decision by the founders and investors on the way forward. A funding round was concluded on the basis of a new business plan with clear implementation steps.
Conclusion:
No decision is the worst decision. Neutral moderation often helps to reconcile divergent investor interests – and to make a stranded asset attractive again.
