Going public through a shell company almost cost more than it raised

The situation

On paper, the numbers looked simple. Andriy and Natalia's company was worth somewhere between eight and fifteen million dollars, built up over years of steady manufacturing work out of Espanola. The listed acquisition vehicle they planned to combine with reported roughly two million dollars sitting in trust, cash raised from public investors and waiting for exactly this kind of transaction. Combine the two, the plan went, and the operating company would emerge as a publicly listed entity with that trust cash added to its balance sheet, without going through the cost and delay of a traditional public offering.

Andriy had started out as a bookkeeper before buying into the manufacturing business with Natalia, who came from a background as a dental assistant before the two of them built the company together over more than a decade. Neither had taken a business public before, and the combination structure, joining forces with an already-listed shell rather than filing a prospectus from scratch, had been presented to them as the efficient path: faster, cheaper, and proven.

The vehicle's sponsor, a promoter named Kajan, had assembled the shell specifically to find an operating business to combine with, which is how these vehicles typically work. Kajan's side had already prepared a set of financial statements for the shell, and Andriy and Natalia's own accountant had reviewed them and signed off on the headline figures before the parties moved toward a signed agreement.

What sat underneath that two million dollars in trust, and what it would actually cost to unlock, had not been examined with the same care as the number on the cover page. By the time our office was retained to handle the legal side of the combination, the commercial terms were largely agreed and a signing date was already being discussed.

Andriy and Natalia had chosen this route specifically because it promised speed. Their manufacturing business had reached a point where additional capital could fund a real expansion, new equipment, a larger facility, more staff, and the traditional path to raising that kind of money publicly, through a full prospectus offering, would have taken far longer and cost more in advisory fees along the way. The combination structure, folding into an entity that was already listed, was supposed to compress that timeline into months rather than the better part of a year.

The risk we had to size

A listed acquisition vehicle is not simply a pile of cash waiting to be claimed. It is a corporation with its own history, including whatever obligations, disputes, or contingent liabilities it accumulated during the period it existed as a public shell searching for a deal. The trust account is usually protected and earmarked for the transaction or for returning money to public investors if no deal happens, but the corporation around that trust account can carry other liabilities entirely.

In this case, the shell had signed a multi-year lease on office space years earlier that it no longer used, and had never formally terminated. It also carried a contingent obligation tied to a prior failed attempt at a different combination, where a break fee might still be owed depending on how that earlier deal had actually ended. Neither item appeared as a clean, quantified liability on the statements Andriy and Natalia's accountant had reviewed, because both were disclosed only in notes and correspondence the accountant had not been asked to chase down.

Sized honestly, the exposure ran into the low millions, enough that if it crystallized after the combination closed, it could have consumed a meaningful share of the trust cash the deal was supposed to bring in, and left the newly combined company covering costs that had nothing to do with the manufacturing business Andriy and Natalia had actually built.

The harder problem was that once the combination closed, those liabilities would belong to the surviving company, the same company Andriy and Natalia would now be running publicly. A liability that had already landed inside the combined entity could not simply be disowned as against whoever was actually owed it - though it could still be managed: priced into the deal, backed by an indemnity or holdback, insured, or carved out of the business before closing. The risk had to be sized and dealt with before signing, not discovered afterward.

There was a timing pressure working against a careful review as well. Kajan's side, like most sponsors of a listed acquisition vehicle, was working against its own clock: these vehicles are typically required to complete a combination within a set window after going public or return the trust money to investors. That pressure meant Kajan had every incentive to keep the process moving quickly and to treat detailed questions about old obligations as a distraction rather than a legitimate part of diligence.

What we did

1. Requested the shell's full corporate and litigation history, not just the audited financial statements Kajan's side had already circulated, because a public shell's real liabilities often live in correspondence, side letters, and unresolved disputes from its search period rather than in the clean summary numbers presented to prospective partners. That request alone produced several boxes of material the accountant's earlier review had never touched.
2. Traced the unused office lease to its actual terms, pulling the original lease and every amendment rather than relying on the shell's own characterization of it, confirming it ran for several more years with no early termination right, and calculated what remaining rent and any landlord claim could realistically total if the lease were never assigned or settled before closing.
3. Followed up on the reference to a prior failed combination buried in a footnote of the shell's records, requesting the termination agreement from that earlier deal directly from Kajan's counsel rather than accepting a verbal summary, which confirmed a break fee provision existed and had not been conclusively resolved between the parties involved, leaving the shell technically exposed to a claim neither its financial statements nor its counsel had flagged for us proactively.
4. Quantified the combined exposure in plain dollar terms and presented it to Andriy and Natalia side by side with the trust cash figure, so the two numbers could be compared directly rather than treating the liabilities as a vague caveat buried in a longer report, and so the couple could see exactly how much of the raise the exposure could realistically consume.
5. Went back to Kajan's side with specific, documented findings rather than general concerns, which made it far harder for the sponsor to dismiss the issue as overcautious lawyering, since the lease and the break fee were both real obligations with paper trails behind them rather than speculative worst-case scenarios our office had invented to justify additional fees. Leading with the paper trail, rather than a general request for comfort, forced a substantive response instead of a reassurance with nothing behind it.
6. Negotiated resolution of both liabilities as a condition of signing, requiring the shell to terminate or assign the lease and to obtain written confirmation that the break fee obligation from the earlier failed deal was settled, rather than accepting a promise that the issues would be cleaned up sometime after closing, since a promise from a shell with no operating business of its own is only as good as the trust cash backing it.
7. Added a holdback from the sponsor's own consideration as a backstop, so that if any liability from the shell's pre-combination history surfaced later despite the confirmations obtained, funds would be available to cover it without pulling from the operating company's own working capital, which mattered because that capital was earmarked for the equipment and staffing expansion the combination was meant to fund in the first place.
8. Set a firm internal deadline for resolving the open items, communicated clearly to Kajan's side, that still left room to walk away from the combination entirely if the lease and break fee issues could not be cleared in time, so Andriy and Natalia never felt pressured into signing simply because a date had already been discussed publicly with investors.

The outcome

The lease was formally terminated before the combination closed, and Kajan's side produced documentation confirming the break fee from the earlier failed deal had in fact been paid and released years before, a fact that had simply never been communicated clearly to Andriy and Natalia's team. Both risks were resolved rather than merely priced into a holdback, though the holdback stayed in the final agreement as an added layer of protection.

Because the exposure was caught and dealt with before signing, the combination closed on the terms originally discussed, with the trust cash flowing into the operating company intact rather than being diminished by liabilities that had nothing to do with the business Andriy and Natalia had built. Nothing about the outcome looked dramatic from the outside; the deal simply closed as planned, which was the point.

Andriy and Natalia's accountant, to their credit, adjusted the firm's process for future engagements after this experience, adding a step to request full corporate history rather than relying solely on prepared financial statements when reviewing any acquisition vehicle. The manufacturing company has operated as a publicly listed entity since the combination, with no liabilities from the shell's earlier history ever having surfaced.

Andriy and Natalia still describe the combination as the right decision for their business, but they are candid that the process taught them something about the limits of relying on a single advisor's sign-off for a transaction of this size. Their accountant was skilled at reading a set of financial statements, but a going-public transaction touches corporate history, litigation risk, and disclosure obligations that sit outside what an accounting review is designed to catch, which is why the two forms of diligence needed to run alongside each other rather than one substituting for the other.

For a company going public through a listed acquisition vehicle rather than a traditional prospectus, that lesson carries extra weight. The whole appeal of the structure is speed, and speed creates pressure to treat the sponsor's own paperwork as the finish line rather than the starting point of a review. Andriy and Natalia got the faster route they wanted, but only because someone slowed the process down at exactly the moment that mattered, before signatures rather than after.

What you can learn from this