Due Diligence and Litigation Support 

The Georgetown Group believes that facts are stubborn things. This belief guides our due diligence and litigation practices. We gather facts that help our clients make wise business decision and prevail at the settlement table or at trial.

Facts are Stubborn Things

Due Diligence 

Failure to conduct a comprehensive due diligence investigation prior to a business transaction can often lead to financial loss, legal liability, and a compromised reputation. We protect our clients from potential fraud and unsound investments before acquisitions, new hires, and other business transactions by examining the backgrounds and relationships of organizations and individuals to uncover any potential risks to our clients’ bottom lines and reputations.

Some examples of our due diligence work include:

  • A due diligence investigation for a company considering a $10 million investment with a new business partner revealed that the prospective partner had been previously sued for fraud and had approached our client with the same fraudulent scheme. When we reviewed the civil complaint against the prospective partner, the allegations of fraud contained the exact elements that he used to approach our client, including his claim that he worked for the U.S. intelligence community.

  • A background investigation of an executive who was being considered for a senior level position determined that he attempted to expunge a criminal record for assault and battery within days of his interview.

  •  We discovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that a business executive had been the subject of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation for securities fraud many years ago.

  • Searching a database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, we found that an individual had been incarcerated in a federal prison on drug charges.


 


The Georgetown Group works with its clients at all stages of the litigation process. Before a complaint is even filed, we gather facts to make a stronger case for our clients - enabling them to force a quick and favorable settlement. Once a complaint has been filed, the discovery process can be slow and unsatisfying. The Georgetown Group addresses these situations by locating and interviewing potential witnesses and documents that buttress our clients’ position. Before a witness is deposed or testifies at trial, we gather background information about the person that gives attorneys the upper hand. Once a deposition has been taken, we examine it closely for inaccuracies or falsehoods. When issues arise suddenly at trial, we respond quickly to make sure that no opportunity to gain an advantage is lost.  After a judgment has been obtained, we search for assets to help our clients recover the money owed to them.


Some examples of our litigation-related investigations include:
 

  • An individual was threatening to sue a prominent executive, hoping that the threat of such litigation - and the attendant negative publicity it would create - would force a quick settlement. A background investigation of the potential plaintiff revealed prior similar threats. It also indicated that when pressed for specific information regarding earlier allegations, the plaintiff defaulted on several occasions. This investigation also discovered that the plaintiff’s attorney was facing possible disbarment for highly unethical behavior. This information enabled the executive to stop the threat of the lawsuit in its tracks.

  • A former executive was demanding several hundred thousand dollars in severance, claiming that he was owed this money for willingly leaving a previous job. Our investigation determined that he had been fired from his previous job. When our client told the executive’s attorney about this fact, he literally dropped his phone. His demand for severance stopped.

  • We conducted a nationwide investigation for a Fortune 500 company facing hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from class action litigation in all 50 states. Our investigation found that many of the plaintiffs were suing our client fraudulently. The evidence we gathered forced the plaintiffs to withdraw their cases or accept very small settlements.

Litigation