A sponsor came to Common Ground wanting help structuring capital for a large land community. They pointed to a technology fund that supposedly existed and a lender letter of intent that looked live.
I verified the claims before we moved any capital. Turned out the technology fund didn't exist, and the lender's letter of intent had already lapsed with nothing recorded. Instead of proceeding on the original terms, and instead of just walking away with nothing, I countered with a different structure.
A deal built on representations you can't independently verify isn't a deal worth funding on the sponsor's word alone, no matter how good the terms look on paper. But finding a problem in diligence doesn't have to mean killing the relationship. It can mean restructuring around the real risk.
I countered with a success fee plus developer units instead of a straight capital commitment. That protected our exposure and kept the relationship alive, and the deal later moved forward under different, safer terms.
When diligence turns up something a sponsor represented that isn't true, the answer isn't always to walk or to proceed blind. It's often to restructure the terms around the risk you just found.
I'll be honest, staying calm and constructive after finding something that easily could have been treated as a dealbreaker or a betrayal, that took some discipline. Easier to solve the problem than to just react to it.