Why Rosemont
A Q&A with Rosemont’s founder and principal discussing Special Situations providing more insight on what the firm does and what sets them apart.
Below are cases discussed to see what special situations and projects look like in practice and how we apply ourselves.
Client: Undisclosed
Type: Manufacturing site of NYSE-listed company
Date: 12-2024
Led the dissolution and sale of a large production site
Main hurdles overcome being unforeseen unknowns, preexisting conflict and a legal bind deadlocking the transaction, while negotiating the terms of the sale.
Orchestrated a process that produced an elegant solution: a path to a deal that satisfied all interested parties, within legal and technical limitations, with zero risk or liability remaining.
Client: Undisclosed
Production site of NYSE-listed company
Date: 09-2022
Resolved enforcement for violation of exceeding emissions allowance
Anticipating being forced into large investment in abatement technology as the only fix, with limited time and a penalty over a breach with limited time and heavy penalties for persisting non-compliance.
In conjuction with engineers a work-around was crafted taking advantage of the discovery of an alternate regulatory provision to meet emission limits, requiring no investment. within time. Both penalties and capex void.
Client: Undisclosed
Large production facility, Nasdaq-listed
Date: 03-2023
Crisis recovery after cascade of post-corona downturns
At stake key clients presenting imminent existential risk, with organization experiencing loss of key personnel, knowledge, and misrepresentation claim pending.
Coordinated triage of immediate failures, while setting up provisional structure restoring key functions and resolved non-compliance and knowledge gaps. Clients and certifications retained against predicted near zero probability in 10 days.
Client: Undisclosed
Type: EU Multinational manufacturer
Date: 01-2025
Lead advisor setting up new facility (foreign direct investment into the Netherlands)
Key challenges were local coordination and stakeholder communcations, translating expertise, approvals, with legislative crisis (nitrogen allowance) being a show-stopper.
Process orchestrated bringing together competences (architect, engineers, etc) to determine optimal operating parameters legal constraints allowed, that produced a succesful approach circumventing the nitrogen issue, and permits secured for factory development to go ahead with no delays.
—— PAST ENGAGEMENTS
Inspections flagging violations, trouble meeting tightening regulations and standards or deterioritating government relations can cause serious disruption, delays, penalties or worse: shutdowns.
Significant capital committed: new production capacity, facility upgrades and technology acquisition. Stakeholder expectations must be maintained under pressure.
Divesting physical assets or closing down a facility involves negotation, risk transfer and a large number of stakeholders that need to be in on your way out.
An organisation experiencing disruption, struggling to function, over-reliant on a single resource, or unable to identify and address the underlying root cause.
Pressure from a competitor or activist group systematically undermining your regulatory standing, or unintentional harm from external activity forcing a response.
Teams tasked with breakthrough innovation or a critical operational challenge — locked under pressure, struggling to move forward despite effort and resource.
—— PAST ENGAGEMENTS
Described here are templates of special situation and special projects in which we are most active.
Violations flagged inspection by authorities, or inability to to meet tightening regulations and standards can cause disruption, delays, penalties or worse: shutdowns.
Not always malicious, as the firm balances costs, competitiveness, and compliance. Its effects are non-linear and persistent. Optionality narrows with time. A purely legal response risks hardening positions. An operational adjustment may actually not be what the authorities need to see. Poor handling may lead to stricter oversight, undermining your regulatory standing towards investors, regulators or public exposure. This can be avoided.
Making decisions prematurely must be avoided, despite pressure. Recognizing the full playfield and addressing issues at the right level the best outcomes are produced, and leaves the organization in a much stronger position, with new space to maneuver.
Divesting physical assets or closing down a facility. This involves a large number of stakeholders, all of whom need to be on board with the approach on your way out, while negotiating the terms of the sale and transferring risk.
A highly complex process surfacing every latent risk, with parties often having very contradictory interests that may change overnight, with completely misaligned timing. It is a non-standard event. No preexisting framework fits. The approach gets discovered by engaging the situation, in order to chart a course forward.
It is entirely situational and dependent on its inherent risks and conditions. Careful stakeholder orchestration and negotiation is required to reconcile differences, coordinate deep expertise and arrive at an elegant solution that hands of the asset with no remaining liability under any circumstance.
Significant capital committed: new production capacity, upgrades to fab or factory and technology acquisition, under pressure. A complex process with set timelines and all the pieces must fit.
Many foreseen, some emerging only as the work is underway. No playbook exists for this and no single silo alone can resolve the constraints and regulatory hurdles must be overcome, while maintaining stakeholder expectations.
The investment proceeds without losing time, capital, or value to inconsistencies between legal, operational, and stakeholder considerations. A workable path navigated and the organization moves forward minimizing delay or cost overruns.
An organization experiencing disruption or breakdown that affects its ability to function properly. It may struggle to make equipment work. It may have become over-reliant on a single resource or vendor, or things that used to work simply aren’t working anymore.
Problems rarely come alone. What begins as a market shift or the loss of key personnel can quickly cascade, amplified by missing information or siloed decision-making. An incident may expose a deeper weakness. Often this is an early indicator of structural weakness: an organization ossifying, people working increasingly in siloes, oversight lacking, resulting in the inability to adequately respond to new demands. When the situation persists, knock-on effects accumulate. Acting swiftly avoids worse.
Such problems are diffuse by nature. They touch multiple functions and cannot be solved locally. A holistic approach is required, one that takes into account all the moving pieces, recognizes the emerging pattern, and informs a possible way forward. It is an open-ended problem, with no specific solution; only a recovery of process, system, or structure. Sometimes through temporary stand-in, sometimes through reorientation, so function gets restored.
Case study: Crisis Recovery
Teams tasked with making equipment work, get a pilot plant up and running, or attempting a breakthrough innovation, but finds itself going in circles, locked in under pressure, and struggling to make progress.
Non-standard by definition, highly complex, with constraints and expertise straddling all domains and with the not yet in existence.
The team has the technical depth and the resources. What is often needed is an someone enabling the team to properly integrate perspectives independent of discipline to get across.
Case studies: None disclosed
Teams tasked with making equipment work, get a pilot plant up and running, or attempting a breakthrough innovation, but finds itself going in circles, locked in under pressure, and struggling to make progress.
Non-standard by definition, highly complex, with constraints and expertise straddling all domains and with the solution not yet in existence.
The team has the technical depth and the resources. What is often needed is an someone enabling the team to properly integrate perspectives independent of discipline to get across.
Case studies: None disclosed
A Q&A with Rosemont’s founder and principal discussing Special Situations providing more insight on what the firm does and what sets them apart.
—— INSIGHTS