Going-concern paragraph already in the audit letter?

CFOs and sponsors who read that paragraph before their banker calls are already searching, not waiting on an introduction. Google ads reach them there. LinkedIn reaches the lawyers who refer this work.

Discuss Our Visibility Program Book a Call

Restructuring advisory sits between the company, the capital structure, and the people who will have to live with the deal. Referrals still come from bankers and counsel who already know you. Those introductions are real. They are also the same names. The company that just tripped a covenant, the sponsor watching a portfolio company deteriorate, the GC who has never managed a balance-sheet crisis: they do not wait for that introduction.

We do not write to those companies. We do not mail the CFO the week of the default notice. The company that tripped a covenant, or the sponsor watching a write-down, has to find the advisor on its own. So does counsel, when the last banker introduction is the wrong fit.

CRO mandates live on cro firms. Operating turnaround lives on turnaround management. Licensed counsel is a different leaf.

How these deals actually work

The CFO, the sponsor, company counsel, and the lenders' advisors are in the room. Covenant relief, going-concern language, a recap, an out-of-court deal: the work is the structure, not an officer title and not operators running the plant.

CFO or GC after a covenant trip

A default notice, a going-concern paragraph from the auditor, or a collateral request from the lender is already driving the search, before counsel has necessarily been called.

Sponsor or lender outside the usual banker introduction

A portfolio company deteriorating on a sponsor's watch, or a lender who needs an advisor the borrower's own banker did not suggest.

Most restructuring advisors would rather not explain this, but it matters to sophisticated counsel: an advisor retained under 11 U.S.C. § 328(a) locks in its compensation terms with the court's approval up front, and that arrangement can only be revisited later if it turns out to be "improvident in light of developments not capable of being anticipated," a far higher bar than the ordinary reasonableness review under § 330. An advisor who negotiates § 328(a) treatment from the start is signaling it expects the deal to hold. A firm that cannot speak to this distinction on the first call is not signaling the same thing.

If this describes your practice

A 20-minute call is enough to determine fit. We will tell you directly if the program does not make sense for what you do. Arrange it here.

What a buyer is actually searching

Restructuring advisor, covenant default advisor, out of court restructuring, going concern advisory. Today is a default notice, a going-concern paragraph, or a sponsor call. Last quarter they still thought the budget would hold.

Bankers and counsel search for an advisor they can send who is not the last firm they used. That is LinkedIn. The CFO in the covenant is Google, searching tonight.

A campaign that sounds like "we are your CRO" misses this buyer, or steals clicks from the CRO leaf. Keep the officer title off this page unless the seat is actually taken.

Objections we hear

Our bankers already intro us. They introduce the names they already have. The CFO who never called that banker is the one searching.

We'll wait for counsel to send it. Counsel sends after they already have a client. The company in the covenant this week may not have called counsel yet.

This is the same as turnaround. Operators inside the company are a different page. Advisory on the structure is this page. Mixing them is how a board looking for a crew gets a slide deck, or the reverse.

Who this is actually for

Advisors who actually sit out-of-court and capital-structure work, in the company sizes they take, and who can speak to § 328(a) versus § 330 retention without stopping to look it up. The lead worth the spend is a live covenant, write-down, or going-concern problem. A healthy recap with no distress is usually a different buyer, and a petition practice is the lawyer leaf.

This page is a poor fit for a firm that wants every CFO after a missed filing mailed on its behalf. That is outbound. It is not this campaign.

Term-loan versus revolver, secured versus unsecured, and whether an out-of-court deal can actually bind the holdouts are the conversation after the first call. A firm that only models and will not sit in the lender meeting is a different product than one that will. Say which one you are before the click, not after.

The tripped covenant is the unit of work, not a healthy recap. Bid the default notice, the going-concern paragraph, the sponsor call, in the company sizes actually sat. Forbearance, an amendment, and an out-of-court recap are different files; if only one is actually done, the page should not look like all three.

How the campaign runs

Google ads for the people already looking. Not one generic "restructuring" campaign: CFOs and GCs searching advisory after a covenant, a collateral request, or going-concern language, and sponsors and lenders searching a firm that can work both sides of the capital structure. Keywords are custom to the work, with brand and competitor-brand bidding only when the strategy calls for it. Details: paid search.

Foundational work runs in parallel: the website, local directories, and general search appearance, so the click lands on an advisory firm and not a volume mill. Bios and listings written in the language of the structure, not a rescue slogan. A landing page may be included; a full website build is always quoted separately. Details: online profile development.

LinkedIn ads aimed at referring counsel: lunch-and-learns for restructuring and bankruptcy lawyers who send the file after they already know three firms. Paid placements only. We do not run LinkedIn message outreach, InMail, or connection-request sequences on your behalf. That is a different channel, and it is not part of this program.

Ads produce inbound while the search is live. Foundation work is why a CFO, a sponsor, or a referring lawyer trusts the firm enough to actually call.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Why we're not generalists

Generalist agencies will not take the time to learn a § 328(a) retention from a § 330 one, let alone build a campaign around the difference. The practice is specialized, the file count is small, and that distinction bores them. They want large spend and heavy traffic to one landing page. We run a tighter campaign for a firm that closes fewer files at a higher value, and the keywords reflect the structure from day one.

How fast this can run

Ads can go live in under a week once keywords and spend are approved. What usually slows a launch is approval on your side, not the platforms. Directories, bios, and a site a buyer will trust take longer to finish, because that layer is why the click converts into a call.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms (Google and, where we run it, LinkedIn). ROI Wire is billed on a retainer that scales with that spend, not a flat project fee, not a percentage of closed files, and not an outbound retainer.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Foundational services, copywriting, CRM, multichannel sequences, and web design, sit under this track as the credibility layer, not as a correspondence program.

Scope is on the Visibility Program. Search mechanics are on paid search. Surfaces are on online profile development.

What is not included

We do not build a solicitation list of distressed companies, sponsors, or lenders. We do not write, mail, or phone CFOs who did not ask. We do not sit the advisory, negotiate the structure, or appear. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

This is not CRO, turnaround management, or licensed bankruptcy counsel. Those are different pages.