Regional escalation is not a news event. It is a leadership test for the GC.

Amr Wageeh, CLO & FDI Policy Advisor in Kuwait, offers practical, business-facing advice on how General Counsel can lead during periods of regional escalation, particularly across contracts, financing, insurance, and governance.

Every business says the same thing when the region starts heating up:

“We’re monitoring the situation.”

That usually means nothing.

It often means the business is watching headlines, forwarding articles, and hoping nothing material happens before someone decides to do real work.

That is not a legal strategy.
That is delay dressed up as awareness.

In periods like this, the problem is not that disruption might come.
The problem is that many companies will respond too late after a delivery is missed, after costs spike, after a lender gets nervous, after a counterparty sends the first formal letter, after the board starts asking the question it should have asked earlier:

Why weren’t we ready?

That is where the General Counsel comes in.

Not as the person who explains force majeure after the damage is done.
Not as the function that writes careful memos once the commercial mess has already landed.
But as the person who helps the business get ahead of the problem while there is still time to preserve leverage, protect continuity, and avoid bad decisions made under pressure.

Because this is what strong legal teams understand:

Risk does not begin when the disruption becomes visible. It begins when the company fails to prepare before it does.

Stop “monitoring.” Start triaging.

When regional escalation intensifies, legal should not begin with theory.
It should begin with triage.

Which contracts matter most?
Which obligations are most exposed?
Which financing arrangements get stressed first?
Which notices could be missed?
Which insurance coverage looks fine in a slide deck but collapses under actual policy language?

Those are the right questions.

The wrong question is whether the business should “wait a bit and see how this develops.”

That approach sounds calm.
In practice, it is how businesses lose rights quietly.

First: identify the contracts that can hurt you fast

Not every contract deserves equal attention in a crisis.

Some contracts are operational.
Some are financial.
Some are reputational.
Some are existential.

The GC’s first job is to separate the routine from the dangerous.

Start with contracts tied to supply chains, logistics, construction, critical services, financing dependencies, guarantees, imported materials, cross-border obligations, and time-sensitive delivery commitments.

Then test four things immediately.

1. Trigger language

Do the force majeure, hardship, exceptional circumstances, or similar clauses actually help you? Or are they narrow, outdated, and mostly decorative?

A lot of businesses assume they have contractual protection.
What they actually have is wishful reading.

2. Notice requirements

This is where rights go to die.

If the contract requires notice within a short window and the business misses it, the debate about whether the event qualifies may become irrelevant. A usable right is one the company is operationally ready to preserve.

3. Flexibility mechanisms

Look beyond termination. Termination is not always the prize.

Repricing clauses, material adverse change provisions, extension rights, variation language, or structured renegotiation mechanisms may be far more valuable than a dramatic legal position that nobody really wants to exercise.

4. Dispute path

If performance is disrupted, what happens next? Suspension? Expert review? Arbitration? Litigation? Senior management escalation? The business needs to know where pressure will build before pressure builds there.

A good GC does not wait for the contract to become a problem.
A good GC identifies which contracts can break, which can bend, and which need attention now.

Second: financing documents do not become less important in a crisis

They become more important.

One of the most common business mistakes during instability is to focus only on operations while underestimating the legal and commercial pressure embedded in financing arrangements.

That is a mistake because lenders do not experience crisis the way business teams do.

The commercial team may see delay.
The lender may see covenant stress.
The operations team may see disruption.
The lender may see disclosure issues, default triggers, deteriorating risk, or the need to tighten position.

That is why legal needs to work with finance early; not when the first uncomfortable call arrives.

Review the undertakings.
Review the guarantees.
Review the security package.
Review the reporting obligations.
Review the milestones.
Review the default mechanics.
Review what happens if costs increase, schedules slip, or project assumptions change.

Then ask the question many teams avoid:

If the situation worsens, where does the financing structure become less patient?

That is the question that matters.

And if early engagement with lenders is needed, do it while the company still looks organised, credible, and deliberate not later, when the conversation feels defensive.

“Risk does not begin when the disruption becomes visible. It begins when the company fails to prepare before it does.”

Third: insurance is only helpful if it responds in the real world

Many executives talk about insurance as if the existence of a policy is the same thing as protection.

It is not.

Insurance is useful only if it responds to the event, under the facts, within the notice requirements, subject to the exclusions, and without a surprise interpretation that turns confidence into disappointment.

So yes, review political risk coverage.
But also review the exclusions carefully. That is where reality usually lives.

War exclusions.
Indirect loss exclusions.
Territorial restrictions.
Causation arguments.
Procedural conditions.
Notification failures.

This is where companies discover that the protection they thought they bought is narrower than the comfort they gave themselves.

That discovery is painful in ordinary times.
In a regional crisis, it is expensive.

The GC should not be asking, “Do we have coverage?”
The GC should be asking, “Under the scenarios we are actually worried about, what really responds, what does not, and what must be done now to preserve the claim position?”

That is a much better question.
It is also the one that matters.

Fourth: governance is not a formality here. It is evidence.

In a volatile environment, governance is not about holding a meeting and using the word “oversight” a few times.

It is about creating a defensible record that management understood the risk, considered the options, and took proportionate steps early enough to matter.

That means the board should receive a real risk memorandum.
Not a recycled update.
Not a generic legal note.
A real one.

It should identify the actual exposure.
It should distinguish serious issues from background noise.
It should recommend specific precautionary steps.
And it should document what management is doing now – before hindsight becomes hostile.

This matters more than internal hygiene.

It matters for stakeholder confidence.
It matters for lenders.
It matters for insurers.
It matters for counterparties.

And if things deteriorate, it may matter later in ways the business will care about very much.

Because in hard moments, governance is judged less by what people say and more by what the record shows.

The goal is not to escalate. The goal is to stay in control.

This part is important.

Early legal action does not mean rushing to declare force majeure, threaten termination, or turn every commercial problem into a legal battlefield.

That is amateur hour.

The real goal is control.

Control of timelines.
Control of notices.
Control of internal escalation.
Control of board visibility.
Control of lender communication.
Control of insurance position.
Control of the factual record.
Control of the company’s options before those options narrow.

That is what sophisticated legal leadership looks like in moments like this.

Not panic.
Not passivity.
Not legal drama.

Control.

And in many cases, the best legal outcome is not winning a dispute.
It is avoiding one while preserving leverage and protecting the relationship.

That is particularly true where long term projects, strategic counterparties, financiers, and reputational considerations are all in play.

This is where the GC earns the seat

A lot of companies say they value legal as a strategic partner.

Moments like this test whether they mean it.

Because when the region is unstable, the GC’s job is not just to explain the law.
It is to help the business think clearly while other people are reacting emotionally, commercially, or politically.

That means cutting through vague optimism.
It means forcing prioritisation.
It means turning “we are monitoring the situation” into a list of concrete actions.
It means identifying where the business is exposed before the exposure gets announced by someone else.

That is why this moment matters.

Not because it creates more work for legal.
But because it reveals whether legal is operating as a real leadership function or as a documentation department.

The strong GCs will already be doing the work:
reviewing the key contracts, mapping financing pressure points, testing insurance response, briefing the board, documenting precautions, and preserving room to maneuver.

Everyone else will say they are monitoring the situation.

And then they will meet the crisis later than they should have.

Final thought

Regional escalation is not just a geopolitical story.

For companies, it is a legal management test.

And the businesses that come through it best are usually not the ones with the boldest statements or the prettiest risk dashboards.

They are the ones whose legal teams moved early, thought clearly, documented carefully, and helped the business act before delay became damage.

That is the job.

And this is exactly the kind of moment that shows whether the GC is merely present in the room or actually helping the business lead through it.

How is your legal team approaching regional escalation right now: as a monitoring exercise, or as a trigger for structured legal action across contracts, financing, insurance, and governance?

Related Publications