This blog:
• is not associated with DHR International, Jobplex, Osprey Capital or the Hoffmann family, and in no way is trying to impersonate DHR International or its associates
• contains only publicly available information - there is no copyright material or personal & confidential information
• will not tolerate any hate speech or harassment

Some of the best reading on this web site comes from the comments. Click on the "Comments" link in the gray box under each post. If you don't want to leave an anonymous comment, feel free to email us with any tip offs at unofficial.dhr(at) If you are employed by DHR International or Jobplex, please email us from a personal computer or device. You can use an anonymous email web site, if you like.

August 22, 2015

David Hoffmann is the most successful executive search consultant ever

Updated August 22, 2015: Addition of Huseby deposition and litigation support solutions - together with the Group's "captive" insurance companies that "provide general liability insurance for companies to help mitigate a company’s risk", Huseby is sensible vertical integration given the amount of litigation that DHR and the Hoffmanns are involved in.

David Hoffmann is arguably the most successful executive search consultant ever: at least measured by net-worth. Have a look at his site for Osprey Capital LLC. On the home page, he claims, “Osprey Capital is one of the largest private family offices in the world, consisting of internationally recognized businesses owned solely by the Hoffmann family”.

So, it is clear that every business listed under the Osprey Portfolio is 100% owned by David Hoffmann and his sons: Geoff Hoffmann and Greg Hoffmann. It is a diverse portfolio including:
Heck, Hoffmann even owns a private plane (Air Hoffmann) with a $14 million Hawker 800XP with three full-time pilots; he uses this to tour his empire.

The Osprey web site gives you some clues to the value of the Hoffmann family. Son Greg Hoffmann's profile says he "has driven the acquisitions of nearly $300 Million of product, including Orange Line Oil, Red Line Insurance, Air Hoffmann, Washington Vines, The Crossing at Beaver Creek Ski Resort and various real estate purchases with other acquisitions pending". According to his LinkedIn profile, Greg Hoffmann joined Osprey Capital in 2012. So, David Hoffmann has made, and Greg Hoffmann has spent, "nearly $300 Million" in under three years.

This significant level of personal wealth is unusual for an executive search consultant. It is incredible hubris: they claim to have "one of the largest private family offices in the world" - this puts them up there with Saudi Princes, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch. Who has ever heard of a search consultant with his own plane?

How has Hoffmann made so much money? Well, I think the Osprey Capital and DHR International web sites plus this blog give you lots of clues.

Firstly, very few professional services firms with "over 50 offices" are 100% owned by one individual. Certainly, the larger search firms are not: Heidrick & Struggles, Korn Ferry and CTPartners are listed. Spencer Stuart, Russell Reynolds and Egon Zehnder are partnerships. The big-four accounting firms and the large law firms are partnerships. In fact, is there any other large professional services firm anywhere in the world where the ownership is not distributed? If you know of one, please let us know in the comments below. Usually, distributed ownership is required to motivate and incentivize the highly professional specialists.

This blog gives you some other clues. If you read the court pleadings found below (and we will be adding some more above), you will find a number of instances where former employees have alleged that DHR International has fired them just before their bonuses fell due (see, for example, Adam Charlson). You will also find examples where DHR International has dragged through the courts former employees who cannot afford expensive attorneys – eventually the employees have to settle. You will find examples where DHR International has been sued by former employees, shareholders (for example, the former President of DHR, Robert Reilly) and even clients (for example, CDI).

If you are a client thinking of hiring DHR International, ask yourself if DHR International will complete the assignment or whether you may need to sue them.

If you are an executive search consultant or researcher thinking of joining DHR International, ask yourself if you will get paid your commissions or whether DHR International and its founder will keep the lion's share in order to expand the empire.

Tip of the hat (once again) to an anonymous commenter below drawing us to the Osprey Capital site. We welcome other tips.

DHR International lose in yet another lawsuit against an insurance company

Update August 22, 2015: DHR withdrew with prejudice from their hopeless case.

DHR International have once again lost in their case against an insurer: in the end, on July 13, 2015, DHR "voluntarily dismiss[ed] their Complaint, with prejudice, against Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America".

The plaintiffs were DHR International, Geoff Hoffmann (CEO) and Douglas Black (CFO), who abysmally failed in their attempt to sue their directors and officers (D&O) insurance provider, Travelers Casualty and Surety.
Doug Black

These lawsuits came out of the lawsuits brought by Adam Charlson (Managing Partner), a Principal in the Silicon Valley Office and Angela Torres (an admin assistant) against DHR, Hoffmann and Black for wrongful termination and DHR's failure to pay entitlements. DHR International were upset by the fact that the insurer did not think that DHR should have got the coverage that DHR expected.

This happened at least once before when Robert Reilly sued DHR International; DHR's then D&O insurance company, Federal Insurance, refused to cover them.

There seems to be a pattern here.

1. DHR wrongfully terminate and fail to pay a high-performing search consultant plus their immediate team including a researcher and EA.
2. DHR allegedly do not pay the consultant what is owed to them.
3. The consultant sues DHR International and one or more Hoffmanns and their henchmen.
4. DHR and the Hoffmanns go to their D&O insurer and ask for coverage to cover the litigation.
5. The insurer refuses coverage because of DHR's wrongdoings.
6. DHR and the Hoffmanns attempt sue their insurer.
7. DHR get laughed out of court.

Usually, companies have D&O insurance to ensure that the insurance company's expensive attorneys are sitting on the company's side of the courtroom. DHR International seem to be OK to have everyone on the other side! Pretty soon, DHR International will run out of insurers willing to insure them. When you take out a policy, you have to answer whether you have had coverage denied.

There's some interesting information in the complaints. DHR admit that Thomas Rizzuto, an in-house lawyer with the insurer, accused DHR of acting “in bad faith" (paragraph 38 of document 1). There is also a clue that there are further similar suits coming against DHR (paragraph 43 of document 2).

Ed Ruberry
The lawsuit is filed by Ruberry, Stalmack & Garvey and it is clear from the complaint that their head Partner, Edward Ruberry, was upset that the insurers picked another firm over him to defend DHR against Charlson. Ruberry is getting to do lots and lots of work for DHR. Just as well that, according to his web profile, Ruberry's #1 practice area is "bad faith" because DHR are on the record that an experienced lawyer thinks DHR are adept at acting in bad faith.

Ruberry's firm even lists DHR on their website as a "Representative Client" but not a client for whom they have had a "Significant Victory". Perhaps it is hard to defend the indefensible...

August 12, 2015

DHR International lie to clients

Geoff, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Thanks to a tip-off from a reader, below is a recent presentation that DHR prepared for clients to trumpet the CTPartners "acquisition" and its "added strength".

In typical DHR fashion, this presentation is full of lies. The full presentation can be found below the fold.

But before we get to that, we should note that the document is clearly marked "Confidential". Yet we have no concerns publishing it here? Why? Because it comes straight from the public domain of the LinkedIn profile of DHR London Managing Partner, Alex Bennett. That's right: if Alex Bennett puts his employer's confidential information so readily into the public domain on the web, what assurance can a client or candidate have that he won't do the same with their confidential information? Search consultants are in a privileged position and are entrusted with substantive client and candidate confidential information and a professional search consultant would protect this. Bennett is a great fit for the unprofessional DHR.

So, here is each slide in living color and our commentary of the litany of lies.

  • It is not clear what steps DHR have taken to create "a consistent culture". Remember: this is an organization that provided no training.
  • DHR and its eat what you kill model are not known for "collaboration". There has been no integration plan, although apparently Christine Greybe is in charge. Will she be as hated by the DHR employees in Europe as she is here in the US?
  • The reference to DHR's "select client base" make it sound like DHR carefully selects its clients! If they really are "select", it is really because reputable organizations won't work with DHR.
  • DHR have a tool called LSI. Isn't this a trademark of Human Synergistics? Of course, others in the industry have executive search tools that are actually backed by real University research, rather than marketing spin.
  • "Our governance, ownership and compensation model are unique". Finally, a statement that's true! No other firm of this claimed size is 100% owned by one individual and no other firm has a governance model that consists of a father and son who lock themselves up in an office and make all decisions without a Board. Despite what DHR say, many others firm are privately held: Spencer Stuart, Russell Reynolds and Egon Zehnder, to name but three.
  • 60+ offices? Why are there only 58 offices on your web site, including at least 3 with no consultants?
  • We love that they refer to "New Geographic Service Centers" with All-Important Capitals. Why not simply call them "offices"? Because many of them are business centers or people's homes rather than offices.
  • They claim 14 new locations, but Cleveland, Warsaw and Zurich are not on their web site yet listed here.
  • In addition to these 3, there are at least 5 markers on the map where DHR don't have offices on their web site; for example, Bangkok, Bogota, Bristol, Buenos Aires and Sydney, not to mention empty offices like Indianapolis, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro. DHR have added at least 11 fake markers to make themselves look bigger than they are.
  • They claim 51 new employees in London, but this is a lie: we count 31 including admin. 
  • First rule of presentations: always use a pie chart if you have nothing interesting to say.
  • Second rule of presentations: always use a second pie chart if you're making up your data.
  • For example, DHR claim to have 7 in Latin America, but their web site only shows 5 people (excluding one at JobPlex); they claim 75 in Europe, but their web site only has 65.
  • They make it sound like all of CTPartners have joined DHR, when it is less than 20%.
  • London on this slide has 70 professionals, which isn't true. Even the DHR web site has only 35 professionals, and this includes a number of people who are based in other offices, such as Frank Smeekes and Xavier Alix. 
Similarly, DHR also posted a corporate video on YouTube heralding that DHR and CTPartners have "joined" forces.

Of course, the video is full of statistics including claiming "14 new global locations". Unfortunately, the DHR web site shows only 10 new "global locations".

August 10, 2015

Poor journalists who fall for the DHR International PR machine

DHR have a well-oiled PR machine and so time-poor, inexperienced journalists fall for DHR's self-publicity hook, line & sinker.

We've written before about Hunt Scanlon and their jaw-dropping history of malfeasance. Hunt Scanlon claim to operate a team of "trusted, experienced reporters and editors" on all things "human capital" but actually also run a PR company (AERIS | Media Group) and have a gobsmacking, shameful track record of receiving embezzled funds from the management of search firms.

Hunt Scanlon don't like transparency: they recently reworked their web site and prevented reader comments without moderators' approval. It appears they did this to stop people shining a light or asking questions on their relationship with DHR or Hunt Scanlon's role in the demise of the Whitney Group and CTPartners. The Whitney saga led to the 2009 bankruptcy of both Christopher Hunt and Scott Scanlon. While bankruptcy allows you to erase some of your debts, it does not allow you to expunge your nefarious actions. Hunt Scanlon rose from the ashes as if nothing ever happened. The front page of their web site refers to the fact they have been "defining and informing the senior talent management sector for over 25 years" indicating the direct lineage of the new Hunt Scanlon Media to the failed venture that made off with the misappropriated Whitney loot.

We've previously emailed questions to Hunt Scanlon about their relationship with DHR International but they have not responded. We can only suspect that this is because what others have told us about their relationship with DHR is true.

Claire Bushey
Another recent example of poor journalism comes from Crain's Chicago Business. Written by a "Reporter", Claire Bushey, the story is based on DHR/Geoff Hoffmann's PR. The article is filled with inaccuracies, suggesting that Bushey did not try and verify the facts.

Some examples of Bushey's inaccuracies:
  1. Bushey quotes Scott Scanlon as an expert. A quick web or press search would have revealed Scanlon's track record.  Scanlon makes the laughable claim that “DHR's moves this summer will definitely change the playing field among the top search firms. There's now a new, significant rival.” What incredible hyperbole!
  2. Bushey quotes Executive Search Review as a source for the size of DHR's revenue. But, as covered on our web site, DHR's numbers have been inflated to make it look bigger than it is. Even worse, Bushey refers to Executive Search Review as if it is a different source of information but, as we all know, it is still Scott Scanlon working on behalf of DHR.
  3. She claims "the largest chunk of CTPartners' $172.5 million in revenue will go to DHR" and quotes Geoff Hoffmann: “The biggest attraction for us was the European footprint, which we were able to secure largely intact.” This isn't true, as we have shown, most of the CTPartners' European team have not joined DHR.
  4. Bushey states "But by the time [DHR International] finalized a deal in July for 14 offices and 210 of CTPartners' employees, much of the struggling firm's top talent already had departed." Firstly, DHR have not acquired 14 offices nor 210 employees. Secondly, actually 78% of CTPartners' consultants were still there at July 1, 2015. The fact is that 80% of that 78% actively elected not to join DHR.
We have written multiple times between August and October 2015 to Claire Bushey and her editors at Crain's Chicago Business (Michael Arndt, Steve Reiss and Ann Dwyer) suggesting they might want to check their facts and sources' bona fides. Bushey responded, suggesting a phone call but Claire Bushey and her editors have failed to answered our direct, simple questions, which we have put to them multiple times; and so we can only assume answers.
  1. Are you able to let us know whether any part of Crain's received any money from DHR or its associates or agencies?
  2. Are you able to confirm whether you verified Hoffmann's or Scanlon's claims?
So, it may be that this the Crain's article is paid for by DHR. Crain's make it clear that this is their business model: "providing marketers with unique custom content and creative solutions, Crain's Custom Media works to challenge advertisers to think outside of traditional marketing platforms - helping them create and craft marketing content that sets them apart from the crowd. Tapping the powerful distribution of Crain's Chicago Business' 218,066 authoritative and influential weekly readers, and nearly 1,200,000 unique monthly visitors, marketers custom campaigns will not go unnoticed." Well, we've noticed it.

Journalists ought to follow the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, "to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough." This includes a need to, among other things:

  • "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived."
  • "Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story."
  • "Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story."
  • "Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate."
  • "Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not."
  • "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage."
  • "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content."
  • "Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness." 
  • "Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly."

But not all journalists do a poor job. Tip of the hat Dawna Jones of the Huffington Post and her focus on the DHR/CTPartners/Caldwell Partners saga. In an opinion piece, entitled "The Value of Transparency in Dealing With a Merger & Acquisition", Ms Jones even referred to this, our humble web site.
"People either impacted by the CTPartners takeover, or learning from it, had access to a site dedicated to assembling publicly available information on DHR. Here, transparency played a part in shining the spotlight on what was going on behind the scenes, including issues that were not being discussed in the mainstream media."
By the way, we don't claim to be journalists, reporters or even independent. But we do allow people to make comments and we do respond to emails. If we are wrong, we will correct the record. We'd like to see Hunt Scanlon and Crain's to offer the same transparency.

DHR International Australia: Margaret Dillon, James Gathercole, Ben Burrell

Update August 10, 2015: Both James Gathercole and Ben Burrell have now updated their LinkedIn profiles to say they work for a firm called Calibre One and have totally disowned their tenures at DHR by deleting all references to the "renowned" firm (thanks to a reader for this tip)
Lorenz Pestinger
"I was recently approached by Lorenz Pestinger from DHR International in Hong Kong about joining DHR in Australia. As the discussions progressed, I was told by Steve Stine (who is the Managing Director Asia Pacific at DHR International) that, if I were to join DHR in Sydney, I would have to hide the fact that I am based in Australia and pretend that I am working out of Singapore! Stine told me that DHR were not allowed to operate in Australia for legal reasons, but wouldn't go into specifics. It felt very shady! I have ethics and wouldn't want to mislead my clients or candidates." 
Steven Stine
"As part of the process, I met a couple of DHR consultants who were based in Melbourne and Sydney but listed on the DHR International site as being in Singapore. I couldn't understand why or how any ethical consultant would do this. How can you do business development with Australian clients but be listed on your firm's website as being based in Singapore? Perhaps there's a tax benefit of being paid your salary and commissions out of Singapore and not paying Australian tax. I don't know..." 
"Fortunately, I was doing my research and found your blog and could see that what DHR International are doing in Australia is not atypical of their behaviour. I have not and won't join DHR International. Feel free to post this on your blog to warn others."
We received this email and then did some research.

It appears DHR International have had at least four consultants operating in Australia in recent months:

Margaret Dillon

The DHR International web site lists Margaret Dillon as being based in Singapore. Her bio on the DHR website admits her "current primary focus on the Australasian markets".

For a while, Dillon's LinkedIn profile made it clear she is working in Melbourne: until July 2015, she was based in  "Melbourne Area, Australia" and the text said "Margaret Dillon serves as Executive Vice President in the firm’s Melbourne office, having transferred from Singapore in October 2012". It also said she was "Currently residing in Melbourne". But in July, 2015 she changed her LinkedIn profile to claim she was in Singapore with the text saying she "is seconded to Australia".

Margaret Dillon is clearly based in Melbourne but partially hiding it for some reason.

And as pointed out by one of the comments below, her DHR bio says she is a "Principal" but, in her LinkedIn profile, she claimed for quite a while to have a more senior position: an "Executive Vice President". As the commenter suggested, she is suffering from "Hoffmannitis" (a syndrome where one embellishes one's resume). Given the focus on her on our web site, she now admits in her LinkedIn profile she has been demoted to "Principal".

James Gathercole 

The DHR International web site listed James Gathercole as being based in Singapore and (then added) Hong Kong. However his only contact number was an Australian (+61) phone number. Further, his bio on the DHR International website said Gathercole was "now a proud Australian".

Due to the coverage of our web site, Gathercole's bio was updated in May 2015 to refer to his supposed working in Hong Kong, as well as Singapore, and a reference to his being in Melbourne. But for at least four months he tried to hide his living and working in Melbourne.

Then in July, 2015, Gathercole disappeared overnight from the DHR web site. He has updated his LinkedIn profile to show he is working at a firm called Calibre One - this is sixth firm in several years. Curiously, although he spent at least six months at DHR, he has dropped all references to DHR International in his Calibre One bio and LinkedIn profile, although has kept the other four earlier search firms where he has worked. A reputable search consultant conducting a search for a client would automatically exclude candidates who omitted key parts of their professional history. But this "Hoffmanitis" is fairly standard practice at DHR.

James Gathercole in Feb 2014 while at DHR, living in the mythical land of "Other"
James Gathercole of Calibre One in August 2014 minus any references to DHR International
His LinkedIn profile was interesting while he was at DHR.  It referred to his working in Australia and showed that he is Melbourne based at least in terms of his membership of the Victorian Executive Committee of the Australia China Business Council. But his profile was deliberately misleading: Burrell lived in a mythical place called "Other". Why didn't his LinkedIn profile say "Singapore" or "Hong Kong" if he was based there with DHR International, as claimed on the DHR web site for some time? Gathercole updated the text of his LinkedIn profile in May 2015 to admit he worked in Australia, but he was still in "Other".

It was clear Gathercole was a DHR International consultant based in Melbourne, Australia. If he is the "proud Australian" he claims to be, why did he try so hard to hide that he was living and working there?

Ben Burrell

The DHR International web site listed him as being based in Singapore but his only contact number was an Australian (+61) phone number! Further, his bio on the DHR International website said "Since relocating back to Australia in 2010, Ben has been an investor in and/or founder of different ventures … and remains actively involved in the local community". You cannot be actively involved in the local Sydney community if you are in Singapore.

Due to the coverage of this web site, Burrell's profile was updated in May 2015 to refer to his supposed working in Hong Kong, as well as Singapore, and an ambiguous reference to his being in Sydney. But for at least four months he tried to hide his living and working in Sydney.

Then in July, 2015, Burrell disappeared overnight from the DHR web site. Like Gathercole, although he spent at least six months at DHR, he has dropped all references to DHR International in his Calibre One bio and as a full role LinkedIn profile, although has kept the the firms where he previously worked and buried DHR in the profile. As we noted above, a reputable search consultant conducting a search for a client would automatically exclude candidates who omitted key parts of their professional history. But Burrell's "Hoffmanitis" is the same as Gathercole's.

Ben Burrell's LinkedIn profile is bizarre. Most people's LinkedIn profiles list their location up the top e.g. "Sydney", "Melbourne", "Hong Kong", "Chicago", etc. Like Gathercole, Burrell lives in a place called "Other". Why doesn't it say "Singapore" if he is based there, as claimed by DHR International until July 2015? In May 2015, presumably due to our shining a light on it, Burrell updated his LinkedIn profile to admit he is "working in Australia", but with this strange "Other" designation.

In other words, he has been clearly based in Australia but tried to hide it for many months. Why?

So, it is clear the executive search consultant approached by DHR International is correct. There's something "shady" going on. It is readily apparent that Dillon and (for a while) Burrell and Gathercole,  have been working for DHR International in Sydney or Melbourne, but why were they not listed as such on the DHR International website for at least four months? We know how much DHR International like to claim they have more offices than they really do. So, why are DHR International wasting this valuable opportunity to inflate their size and add more offices to their map?

This is a coordinated effort between DHR International, its leadership (including Steve Stine) and its Australian employees to deceive. To put "Other" into your LinkedIn profile, you have to scroll through 200 countries and look below Zambia and Zimbabwe. You don't do that by mistake. The DHR International Australian consultants are the only consultants in Singapore not to have Vcards on the site, presumably so that DHR can hide their real addresses.

So, why are DHR International attempting to hide their operations in Australia?

Steve Stine told the prospective recruit that DHR were "not allowed to operate in Australia for legal reasons". We previously posted the legal documents where DHR International, David Hoffmann and Margaret Dillon were being sued by a shareholder in relation to their operations in Australia. From the court documents, Hoffmann and Dillon were board directors of the DHR International subsidiary in Australia and it appears they did not comply with their legal obligations, leading a shareholder to sue them in May 2013. We know that "Australia" disappeared from the DHR International website between September and October 2013.

But that doesn't reconcile with the fact that Dillon "transferred from Singapore in October 2012" to Melbourne and, according to her LinkedIn profile has been working in Melbourne for DHR International ever since. A LinkedIn search shows a number of other employees who were working for DHR International in Australia left in early 2013. Only Dillon remained.

What we don't (yet) know is why DHR are not allowed to operate in Australia. Did they lose the lawsuit in Australia? Is there a regulatory reason where DHR International are not allowed to operate unless they have a license and, instead of getting one, they are hiding the fact they are operating from the Australian regulator?

And why would Ben Burrell, Margaret Dillon and James Gathercole be comfortable working for DHR International and operating in Australia without for so long being listed on the DHR International web site or (in three cases) even LinkedIn as being in Australia? How on earth do they explain this to clients and candidates in Australia? Don't their clients and candidates think this is "shady"?

For the first half of 2015, there were five consultants listed as being in the DHR International Singapore office. It turns out three of the five were based in Australia, meaning it was a two-consultant office.

Tip of the hat to the consultant who sent us this email from "down under". We would welcome any more information on the situation in Australia. Please leave us a comment below or email us at unofficial.dhr(at) You can even do this anonymously.

August 2, 2015

DHR International: the debt collectors?

Update: August 2, 2015: updated to include an email sent by DHR to a CTPartners' client

Multiple readers have emailed and alerted us to DHR's latest tactic: DHR International are contacting CTPartners' former clients and demanding money.

One former CTPartners employee expressed their concerns as follows:
"I wanted to draw your attention to something, which I would like to ask if it is appropriate, legal or is it the case of DHR International sailing very close to the wind?" 
"I have it on very good authority from my ex-CTPartners colleagues (some now at DHR) that, in various parts of the world stretching from Australia to the U.S., DHR Partners/management are contacting CTPartners' clients claiming they have bought the global assets or global contracts or selected contracts of CTPartners and saying they will continue the work and, in some cases, demanding money from said clients, as aged debts. When clients challenge this or ask for written proof, these Partners get aggressive with the client or disappear. Clearly, I am not in the know as to whether or not DHR really have bought these "assets"?
"I wonder if others around the world have heard of this; at the very least, I am sure CTPartners' lenders would be interested in this."
Doug Black,
debt collector
Following our original post, another reader then sent us an email written by DHR CFO, Doug Black, to one of CTPartners' former clients. We have removed some details to protect our source and the client, plus some DHR information like bank account numbers.
Dear [client name]:
This notice is to inform you that on July 1, 2015 CT Partners transferred all of its customer receivables to CT Liquidations LLC.  In turn, CT Liquidations LLC has entered into a contract with DHR International to collect all outstanding receivables and complete all open searches previously contracted between you and CT Partners.  Our records indicate the following outstanding receivable:

Invoice Number: [deleted]
Invoice Date:[deleted]
Search Description: [deleted]
Invoice Amount: USD $[deleted]

Please remit all outstanding balances to the following bank account:

Account Name:  DHR International Asia Ltd.
Bank:  HSBC, 1 Queen’s Road Central, HK, HK
Account: [account number deleted]

Please note that payment should be made in the same currency as stated on the original invoice.

Please contact Christine Jack at [email address deleted] if you have any questions regarding this notification.

With kind regards,

Douglas M. Black
CFO – DHR International

Doug Black
Chief Financial Officer
DHR International
71 S. Wacker Dr.  |  Ste 2700  |  Chicago, IL  |  60606
T: [deleted] | [email address deleted] 
For more than 25 years DHR International has been a leading, privately held provider of executive search solutions with more than 70 wholly-owned offices spanning the globe. DHR’s renowned consultants specialize in all industries and functions in order to provide unparalleled senior-level executive search, management assessment and succession planning services tailored to the unique qualities and specifications of our select client base. For more information on DHR International, visit

So, it appears DHR are indeed operating as debt collectors, having acquired all the searches and receivables from CTPartners' lenders.

Are any clients actually sending money to DHR? 
Will DHR call on its army of attorneys to enforce these debts? 
How much did DHR pay CTPartners' lenders for these receivables? 
What happens in the majority of cities, where DHR picked up the existing searches but no consultants to execute them?

This is a bad look for the executive search profession. 

By the way, it is interesting to see Doug Black's email signature when he claims that DHR have "more than 70 wholly-owned offices spanning the globe". As we have written before, at best, DHR have 45 non-empty offices. But what is a 58% exaggeration/lie when you are the CFO of a bottom-feeding debt collector?