Chapter 7 - ETHAN'S DEFENSE
Ethan’s board presentation was strong.
He acknowledged the domestic assault separately.
Said:
“I will accept personal legal consequences.”
Then moved to business.
He argued:
the company needed liquidity,
the market window was narrowing,
the lender package was expensive but workable,
delaying could trigger supplier concern,
Ellison concentration was manageable,
Claire’s conditions could cost millions.
Several directors agreed.
That mattered.
Claire was not automatically right because Ethan was abusive.
Then CFO Michael Grant presented forecasts.
Base case:
refinancing worked.
Downside case:
tight.
Severe downside:
asset sale likely.
Claire asked:
“Why is the severe downside missing a 12% customer-volume drop?”
Michael looked at Ethan.
Then at the spreadsheet.
“It uses 8%.”
“Why?”
“That was management guidance.”
Ethan said:
“Twelve is unrealistic.”
Claire opened the customer letter.
Their largest customer had already warned of a possible 10–15% reduction.
The room went still.
Ethan snapped:
“They’re negotiating.”
“Maybe.”
Claire looked at the board.
“But the downside model should show what they actually said.”
Then Mark Ellison’s supply pricing came up.
Ethan defended it again.
“Switching suppliers could disrupt production.”
Vanessa Holt answered:
“We proposed dual sourcing, not immediate replacement.”
Another difference.
Then board member Thomas Reed asked Ethan:
“Why wasn’t that recommendation in the financing materials?”
Ethan answered:
“Because it was operational.”
Thomas said:
“Supplier concentration is credit-relevant.”
Silence.
For the first time, Ethan’s business defense weakened.
Not because Claire exposed a crime.
Because he had curated risk.
May you like
He gave lenders the version most likely to close.
That habit had worked until someone with consent rights refused to sign.
