Business Partner or Director Arrested? How to Protect Company Bank Accounts, Assets and Operations

When a co-founder, managing director or key business partner is arrested, the immediate crisis is rarely limited to the criminal case. Payroll may be due the next morning. The arrested person may be the only bank signatory. Vendors may stop dispatches. Investors may demand answers. Lenders may invoke information covenants. Employees may start forwarding rumours. At the same time, the investigating agency may seek company records, freeze accounts or allege that business assets represent proceeds of crime.

The first legal mistake is to treat the company and the arrested individual as if they are the same person. In a company or limited liability partnership, they are not. The second mistake is the opposite one: assuming that the corporate structure makes every company asset immune from investigation. It does not. The correct strategy is to preserve operations while proving, document by document, which assets, funds and decisions belong to the business and which are genuinely connected to the alleged offence.

A business owner looking for a corporate litigation lawyer Delhi after a partner arrest usually needs two parallel workstreams from the first day. One team must address the criminal proceedings, bail and investigation. The other must protect corporate governance, banking authority, records, employees, contracts and legitimate business assets. If these workstreams are not coordinated, a defensible criminal case can still produce a commercial collapse.

Does the Business Stop Because a Director Is Arrested?

Ordinarily, no. Arrest by itself does not dissolve a company, cancel its contracts, transfer its property or automatically remove a director from office. A company has perpetual succession and a legal identity distinct from its shareholders and directors. The practical problem is authority: can the remaining board validly meet, can someone operate the bank accounts, and can the company continue to execute contracts and statutory filings without the detained person?

The answer depends on the legal structure, the articles of association, the board composition, the bank mandate, shareholder agreements, powers of attorney and any court or agency order affecting the assets. That assessment should be completed immediately, not after the first salary or vendor payment fails.

First Identify the Legal Structure: Company, LLP or Partnership Firm

The expression business partner is used casually, but the legal consequences differ sharply depending on how the business is constituted.

1. Private or Public Limited Company

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 is a separate juristic person. Its bank accounts, contracts, intellectual property and other assets belong to the company, not to an individual shareholder or director merely because that person controls the business.

The Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1955 SC 74, explained the distinction clearly: a shareholder has a right to participate in profits when dividends are declared, but does not acquire ownership in the company's assets. This principle is fundamental when an investigating agency attempts to treat every company asset as the personal property of an accused promoter.

2. Limited Liability Partnership

Section 3 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 expressly provides that an LLP is a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It has perpetual succession, and a change in partners does not affect its existence, rights or liabilities. Arrest of one designated partner therefore does not, by itself, end the LLP.

Operational authority, however, depends heavily on the LLP agreement, banking mandate and the availability of another designated partner. The agreement should be reviewed immediately for signing powers, decision thresholds, replacement mechanisms and events of default.

3. Traditional Partnership Firm

A traditional partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is structurally different. Section 18 treats every partner as an agent of the firm for the purposes of its business, and the acts of a partner within implied authority may bind the firm. Arrest alone is not listed as an automatic event dissolving the firm. The partnership deed, however, may contain its own consequences for prolonged incapacity, criminal allegations, expulsion or management rights.

In a partnership, the distinction between personal and firm liability is therefore more fact-sensitive than in an incorporated company or LLP. The deed and the nature of the alleged transaction become central.

Does Arrest Automatically Remove a Director From Office?

No. The Companies Act does not say that a director vacates office merely because he or she has been arrested or remanded to custody.

Section 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 specifies circumstances in which the office of a director becomes vacant. These include specified disqualifications, absence from all board meetings for twelve months, certain conflicts-of-interest violations, a disqualification order, removal under the Act, and conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment of not less than six months, subject to the statutory protection concerning appeals and timing.

This distinction matters. An arrested director may remain legally on the board while being practically unable to sign documents, attend meetings or manage daily operations. The company cannot simply treat the office as vacant because management would prefer an easier solution. Any replacement or reconstitution must follow the Companies Act, the articles and the shareholder arrangements.

The First 48 Hours: A Corporate Crisis Playbook

Hour 0 to 2: Confirm What Has Actually Happened

Do not run the company on rumours from employees, relatives or social media. Obtain the arrest memo, FIR or case details, the name of the investigating agency, the court before which the person is being produced, the offences invoked and the remand position. Determine whether the company itself is named as an accused or only the individual.

At the same time, identify whether any search, seizure, summons, account-freezing instruction or document-production notice has been issued to the company. A criminal arrest and an asset restraint are separate legal events and must be treated separately.

Hour 2 to 6: Map Every Operational Dependency

Prepare a one-page authority map covering:

• +all company and subsidiary bank accounts and existing authorised signatories
• +who controls net-banking maker and checker rights
• +who holds digital signature certificates used for MCA, GST, tax and other filings
• +which contracts require the arrested person's signature or personal approval
• +who has authority over payroll, treasury, vendor payments and purchase orders
• +who controls ERP, email administration, cloud storage and accounting access
• +which loan agreements or shareholder agreements contain key-person, default or notification clauses
• +whether any personal guarantee, pledge or cross-collateral arrangement links the arrested person to company borrowings

This map is the foundation of business continuity during arrest. It tells the board what must be reassigned immediately and what cannot lawfully be changed without shareholder, lender or regulator consent.

Hour 6 to 12: Convene the Board if a Valid Quorum Exists

Section 174 of the Companies Act provides that the quorum for a board meeting is one-third of the total strength or two directors, whichever is higher. Participation through video conferencing or other permitted audio-visual means counts towards quorum. An arrested person should not be assumed to be available for a board meeting merely because technology exists; access from custody depends on the court, jail administration and the facts.

If the remaining directors constitute a valid quorum, the board can consider emergency resolutions within its lawful powers. Depending on the articles and existing delegations, these may include changing bank signatories, appointing authorised representatives, delegating operational powers, retaining legal counsel, authorising replies to investigative notices and creating a crisis-management committee.

Section 179 recognises the board's power to exercise the company's authority subject to the Act, memorandum, articles and matters reserved for shareholders. The board should therefore use a formal resolution rather than informal WhatsApp approval for critical changes.

Hour 12 to 24: Fix the Bank and Signing Problem Before Payments Fail

Where the arrested director was the only bank signatory or sole checker, the company should immediately speak to its bank with a certified board resolution and updated KYC or mandate documents. The bank may have its own compliance requirements before adding a new signatory. Do not assume that a board resolution instantly changes the mandate.

The same review applies to payment gateways, corporate cards, demat accounts, treasury platforms and foreign-exchange facilities. A bank may also seek information about the criminal case if contractual or compliance obligations are triggered. Responses should be accurate and limited to what is legally required.

Hour 24 to 48: Build the Asset Segregation File

If the investigation concerns money flows, prepare a clean documentary separation between the individual and the business. This should include audited accounts, bank statements, invoices, GST returns, payroll records, loan documents, board approvals, vendor ledgers, tax filings and source-of-funds records.

The objective is not to create paperwork after the event. It is to organise existing contemporaneous material so that the company can show which receipts arise from legitimate trading, which assets pre-date the alleged offence and which transactions have no connection to the accused person.

What if the Remaining Board Cannot Reach Quorum?

This is where many founder-led companies become vulnerable. A two-director company may become operationally paralysed if one director is detained, even though the detained director has not legally vacated office. The fact that a person cannot practically attend does not automatically reduce the company's total board strength.

Where quorum exists, Section 161(1) may allow the board to appoint an additional director if the articles confer that power. Where there is a genuine vacancy in a public company, Section 161(4) may permit the board to fill a casual vacancy subject to the Act and articles. Those provisions should not be mechanically used to declare an arrested director's office vacant when it is not.

If the board is genuinely unable to act, shareholder intervention may be required. Section 100 permits qualifying members holding the statutory voting threshold to requisition an extraordinary general meeting. Depending on the articles and shareholding, the members may use a general meeting to appoint directors and restore a functioning board.

In a serious shareholder deadlock, oppression or mismanagement dispute, relief before the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 241 and 242 may become relevant. Arrest itself does not create NCLT jurisdiction; the company-law grievance must independently satisfy the statutory framework.

Power of Attorney: Does Arrest Cancel It?

Not automatically. A power of attorney is an agency arrangement. Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 lists termination by revocation, renunciation, completion of the agency business, death or unsoundness of mind of the principal or agent, and insolvency of the principal. Arrest is not, by itself, listed as an event terminating agency.

That does not mean every old power of attorney should continue to be used without review. The document may contain its own termination event. A bank or counterparty may require fresh authority. The principal may revoke it. The power may be limited to acts that cannot now be carried out. Most importantly, a power personally given by the arrested individual must not be confused with authority granted by the company through a board resolution.

If the company itself granted a power through its board, the effect of an individual director's arrest depends on the wording of the corporate authority, not merely on that director's physical availability.

Do Not Use the Arrested Director's DSC, Passwords or OTPs Informally

A common panic response is to ask an employee to use the arrested director's digital signature certificate, email login, banking token or OTP so that filings and payments can continue. That can create a second legal problem.

Digital signatures and regulated credentials are not generic office tools. The company should identify another lawfully authorised signatory and complete the necessary corporate and portal formalities. Do not backdate resolutions, create false attendance records or make it appear that the detained director personally approved a transaction that he did not approve.

Operational continuity must be legally reconstructed, not simulated.

Are Company Assets Safe Because the Arrest Is Personal?

No blanket answer is possible. The starting point is separate corporate personality, but investigative statutes permit attachment where a legally defined nexus exists between property and criminal activity.

The company should ask four questions about every threatened attachment:

• +Who owns the property in law: the company, the accused individual, an LLP, a subsidiary or a third party?
• +What statutory power is the agency relying upon?
• +What alleged offence generated the property or funds?
• +What evidence connects this particular asset to the alleged criminal activity?

The company's separate identity is a strong evidentiary and legal starting point. It is not a licence to conceal tainted property behind a corporate name. Courts may lift the corporate veil where the company is used as a facade, where statutes require looking at the real transaction, or where public interest and fraud justify doing so. The defence must therefore rely on genuine records, not only the label "company property".

BNSS Sections 106 and 107: Seizure Is Not the Same as Attachment

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes an important distinction between seizure of property during investigation and attachment of alleged proceeds of crime.

Section 106 gives a police officer power to seize property that is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or is found in circumstances creating suspicion of an offence, subject to reporting obligations. Section 107 is the specific mechanism for attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property believed to have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity.

Under Section 107, the investigating police officer must obtain approval of the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police and apply to the competent Court or Magistrate for attachment. Where the Court or Magistrate has reason to believe that the property represents proceeds of crime, notice may be issued requiring the affected person to show cause within fourteen days. The statute contemplates a reasonable opportunity of hearing before final attachment, while also allowing an ex parte interim order where prior notice would defeat the object of attachment.

This procedure matters enormously for operating bank accounts. A police request to preserve evidence and a judicial attachment of alleged proceeds of crime are not interchangeable concepts.

Delhi High Court 2026: Malabar Gold and the Limits on Blanket Bank Freezing

The Delhi High Court's order in Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025, decided on 16 January 2026, is particularly important for businesses whose accounts become collateral damage in another person's criminal investigation.

The petitioner company was carrying on a regular business and its accounts had been frozen after transactions with a customer who was facing complaints. There was no complaint or demonstrated complicity against the petitioners. The Court examined Sections 106 and 107 BNSS and held that Section 106 concerns seizure, whereas attachment or debit-freezing directed at securing alleged proceeds of crime must be undertaken under Section 107 through the competent Magistrate and the prescribed safeguards.

The Court also emphasised that blanket or disproportionate freezing of accounts of an entity that is neither an accused nor a suspect can paralyse day-to-day business, salaries and commercial operations. It directed defreezing of the petitioners' bank accounts, while preserving the investigating agency's right to proceed afresh in accordance with law if positive and specific material of complicity emerged.

The judgment does not mean that a company account can never be restrained. Its importance lies in the requirement of lawful authority, nexus, proportionality and procedure. Where the business can show that the account contains legitimate operating funds and the alleged disputed amount is identifiable, a blanket freeze is substantially harder to justify.

What if the Case Involves PMLA, GST or Another Special Statute?

Section 107 BNSS is not the only attachment regime in Indian law. If the Enforcement Directorate alleges money-laundering, attachment may be initiated under Sections 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. GST authorities may rely on their own statutory powers in appropriate proceedings. Benami, NDPS and other special laws contain separate mechanisms.

The company must therefore identify the exact statute before challenging an asset restraint. An argument that is correct against a police debit-freeze under the BNSS may be irrelevant to a provisional attachment order issued under the PMLA.

In Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7854, the Delhi High Court examined the PMLA attachment regime and the position of bona fide third-party interests. The judgment illustrates the larger principle that attachment disputes turn on the statutory definition of proceeds of crime, the nature of the claimant's interest, the timing of acquisition and the nexus with the accused. The company should be prepared to prove those facts rather than rely on a generic assertion of ownership.

How to Prove That Company Money Is Legitimate Business Money

A court or investigating agency will usually be more persuaded by a transaction trail than by corporate labels. Build an evidence file that can answer the money-flow allegation quickly.

• +audited financial statements and tax returns covering the relevant years
• +GST returns, e-invoices, e-way bills and reconciliations supporting genuine sales or purchases
• +customer and vendor agreements corresponding to the disputed receipts
• +bank statements showing the source and onward use of funds
• +payroll records and statutory dues demonstrating the need for operating liquidity
• +loan sanction letters and disbursement records for borrowed funds
• +board approvals for significant transactions and related-party dealings
• +asset purchase invoices showing when and how machinery, vehicles or property were acquired
• +share subscription and investment records distinguishing promoter funds from company earnings
• +a transaction matrix separating the alleged disputed amount from unrelated clean balances

This is asset protection corporate work in the legal sense: proving lawful ownership and source, preserving records, challenging disproportionate restraints and ensuring the company can continue to meet legitimate obligations. It does not mean transferring assets out of reach of investigators.

Do Not Move Assets After the Arrest to "Protect" Them

A rushed transfer of money to another group company, sale of property to a relative, backdated loan agreement or sudden withdrawal of cash can be disastrous. Even where the original asset was legitimate, post-arrest movement may be portrayed as concealment, dissipation, obstruction or consciousness of guilt.

Continue only genuine business transactions supported by existing contracts and ordinary-course records. If an asset is subject to an express restraint, do not deal with it unless the competent authority or court permits the transaction.

The best protection for a legitimate asset is a clean evidentiary trail and a timely legal challenge, not a hurried transfer.

What Should the Company Tell Banks, Creditors and Suppliers?

Silence can create panic, but over-disclosure can create contractual and litigation risk. The communication strategy should be factual and audience-specific.

Banks and Lenders

Review loan agreements for key-person events, material litigation notices, change-of-control provisions and information covenants. If notification is mandatory, comply accurately. At the same time, make clear that the company continues to operate, identify the new authorised contacts and provide board resolutions where needed.

Major Suppliers and Customers

There is rarely a need to circulate the FIR. A short communication may state that the company continues normal operations, that authorised management remains in place, and that contractual obligations will be honoured. Avoid statements declaring the arrested person guilty or making admissions about disputed transactions.

Employees

Employees should receive one verified internal message. They should be told who is authorised to speak externally, how to respond to law-enforcement requests and where to escalate media or customer queries. Rumour control is part of business continuity.

Insurers

Review directors and officers liability insurance, crime policies, cyber policies and key-person cover. Some policies require notice of circumstances within defined periods. Missing the notification window can prejudice coverage.

How to Handle a Search, Summons or Data Demand After the Arrest

Once a key person is arrested, agencies often approach the company for documents, devices, employees or records. The company should cooperate with lawful process while preserving its own legal position.

• +appoint one legal point of contact for all agency communications
• +preserve emails, chats, accounting records, CCTV, access logs and devices relevant to the inquiry
• +issue an internal legal hold so that routine deletion policies do not destroy relevant material
• +do not coach employees to give a common factual version
• +keep a complete inventory of every document and device handed over
• +supply what is lawfully required, but do not volunteer unrelated confidential material without understanding the legal basis
• +preserve privileged legal communications separately and obtain advice before producing them

The company's response should be consistent with the individual's defence, but the company may have independent interests. In some cases, separate representation is necessary because the arrested director may blame employees or the company, while the company may need to demonstrate that the questioned act was personal and unauthorised.

Conflict of Interest: Should the Same Lawyer Represent the Director and the Company?

Not automatically. At the beginning, the interests may appear aligned. Later, the agency may allege that the director acted for personal benefit, while the company may need to argue that the act was outside authority. Employees may also become witnesses.

The conflict should be assessed early. The company needs advice about governance, disclosure, asset preservation, privilege and regulatory response. The individual needs advice about bail, statements, personal criminal exposure and custody. In a high-stakes matter, coordinated but independent representation may protect both sides better than pretending their interests can never diverge.

Shareholder Agreements and Founder Documents Can Change the Strategy

Founder-led businesses often have contractual provisions that become relevant only during a crisis. Review the shareholders' agreement, investment agreement, employment contract and articles for:

• +reserved matters requiring the arrested founder's consent
• +director nomination and removal rights
• +key-person clauses and investor consent rights
• +bad-leaver or misconduct provisions
• +share-transfer restrictions, pledges and call options
• +deadlock mechanisms
• +information rights and mandatory notices to investors
• +events of default under shareholder loans or convertible instruments

Do not trigger these provisions reflexively. An arrest is an accusation, not a conviction. A misconduct clause may require a charge, conviction, finding, board determination or another defined event. Wrongfully forcing out a founder during the criminal case can create a separate oppression, contractual or valuation dispute.

Can the Company Remove the Arrested Founder From Management?

Management authority and ownership are different. A founder may be a shareholder, director, employee, managing director and authorised signatory at the same time. Each capacity is governed by different documents and statutes.

The board or shareholders may be able to change operational authority without extinguishing shareholding. Removal from the board must follow the Companies Act and articles. Termination of employment must follow the contract and employment law. Share transfer requires compliance with the articles and shareholders' agreement. Arrest does not automatically confiscate voting rights or shares.

Where the remaining shareholders use the arrest merely as an opportunity to dilute, exclude or appropriate the founder's interest, the dispute may move into oppression and mismanagement proceedings before the NCLT. Crisis management should therefore remain legally defensible even when relationships have broken down.

When Should the Delhi High Court or NCLT Be Approached?

Delhi High Court

Writ jurisdiction may be considered where a public authority has frozen or restrained business assets without lawful authority, due process or proportionality, particularly where the restraint paralyses operations and an effective statutory remedy is unavailable or inadequate in the circumstances. Malabar Gold is a useful example of the High Court intervening against indefinite and unreasoned freezing.

Jurisdictional Criminal Court or Magistrate

Where Section 107 BNSS is invoked, the attachment process itself is before the competent Court or Magistrate. The company must appear, answer the show-cause notice, place ownership and source documents on record and seek release or limitation of the attachment.

NCLT Delhi Bench

NCLT relief becomes relevant where the arrest exposes or causes a company-law dispute such as oppression, mismanagement, board deadlock, wrongful exclusion, invalid allotment or diversion of corporate control. The Tribunal is not a substitute forum for challenging an arrest or ordinary police investigation.

A company with operations outside Delhi may require coordinated local proceedings. The forum follows the registered office, investigating unit, court allocation, statutory scheme and location of the challenged action, not simply the residence of one founder.

Common Mistakes That Make the Corporate Crisis Worse

• +waiting until payroll or a major payment fails before changing signing authority
• +assuming arrest automatically removes a director and passing resolutions on a false vacancy
• +using the arrested person's DSC, passwords, banking token or OTP without lawful authority
• +backdating board minutes or manufacturing attendance
• +moving money to relatives or group entities to place it beyond investigators
• +deleting emails, chats, accounting entries or access logs after learning of the investigation
• +telling banks or investors that there is no case when a material proceeding actually exists
• +publishing emotional statements that prejudice the criminal defence
• +failing to separate personal funds, company funds and group-company funds in the evidence record
• +letting one lawyer continue to represent everyone after a real conflict of interest has emerged
• +treating every asset freeze as valid without identifying the statutory authority and order

Good partner arrest guidance is therefore not limited to bail. It requires corporate law, criminal procedure, banking, contracts, evidence and crisis communication to move together from the first day.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a Company Continue Operating if Its Managing Director Is Arrested?

Yes, provided the company has a valid governance and signing structure. Arrest does not automatically dissolve the company. The immediate task is to determine board quorum, banking authority, delegated powers and whether any court or agency order restricts the company's assets.

2. Does Arrest Automatically Vacate a Director's Office?

No. Section 167 of the Companies Act specifies the grounds on which a director vacates office. Arrest by itself is not one of them. Conviction, sentence, disqualification or other statutory events may have consequences, but they must be analysed separately.

3. Can the Board Appoint Another Bank Signatory Immediately?

If a validly constituted board with the required quorum has power under the articles and existing mandates, it can pass the necessary resolution. The bank may still require its own forms, KYC and compliance review before the new mandate becomes operational.

4. Can Police Freeze the Entire Company Bank Account?

A restraint must have lawful statutory authority. Under the BNSS framework examined by the Delhi High Court in Malabar Gold, Section 106 seizure power cannot be used as a substitute for debit-freezing or attachment of alleged proceeds of crime; Section 107 requires the competent judicial process. Special statutes such as PMLA operate under their own attachment provisions.

5. Can the Company Keep Paying Salaries and Vendors?

If no lawful restraint prevents operation of the account, legitimate ordinary-course payments can ordinarily continue. Where the account is frozen or attached, the company should seek urgent release, modification or permission rather than route payments through undisclosed substitute accounts.

6. Does a Power of Attorney Become Invalid Because the Principal Is Arrested?

Not merely because of arrest. Section 201 of the Contract Act does not list arrest as an automatic termination event. The specific power, its wording, any revocation, the principal's capacity and the receiving institution's requirements must still be checked.

7. Are Company Assets Liable for a Director's Personal Criminal Case?

Not simply because the accused is a director or shareholder. The company is a separate legal person. However, assets can be proceeded against where the company itself is implicated, the property is shown to be proceeds of crime, the corporate structure is used to conceal criminal property, or a special statute provides a valid attachment basis.

8. Should We Inform Employees and Clients About the Arrest?

Employees should usually receive a controlled internal communication identifying current authority and escalation channels. Client and vendor communication should depend on contractual obligations and business necessity. Avoid unnecessary details and do not make admissions about disputed allegations.

9. Can NCLT Resolve the Problem if the Arrest Creates a Board Deadlock?

Possibly, but only where the facts create a genuine company-law cause of action such as oppression, mismanagement or another relief within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. NCLT does not grant bail and does not supervise the criminal investigation.

Why Choose Pramanika Legal for Corporate Crisis and Criminal Proceedings

An arrest involving a founder or director creates a mixed dispute. The criminal case affects liberty, statements, evidence and remand. The corporate case affects governance, bank mandates, contracts, employees, investors and the continued ability of the business to trade. Treating only one side of the problem leaves the other exposed.

Pramanika Legal advises founders, directors, companies and business owners on white-collar investigations, corporate litigation, shareholder disputes, bank-account restraints, asset attachment, urgent court relief and operational continuity. Where required, the strategy can combine representation before criminal courts, the Delhi High Court, the NCLT Delhi Bench and other statutory forums.

The focus is to protect lawful business operations without obstructing the investigation, preserve the distinction between personal and corporate assets, and ensure that emergency governance decisions remain valid months later when the initial crisis has passed.

Conclusion

A partner or director arrest does not automatically destroy the business. What creates lasting damage is the absence of a coordinated response. If the company does not restore signing authority, preserve records, separate legitimate assets, review contracts and challenge unlawful restraints quickly, the commercial consequences may become more severe than the criminal allegation itself.

The core strategy is disciplined separation. Separate the accused from the corporate entity. Separate personal assets from company property. Separate evidentiary seizure from attachment. Separate valid operational payments from suspicious asset movement. And separate the individual's criminal defence from the company's independent governance obligations where their interests diverge.

A business that can prove its ownership, authority and money trail is in a far stronger position to keep operating while the criminal process runs its course.

Corporate Crisis Consultation: Protect Your Business Operations.