This is more common than you think, but you need to get ahead of it immediately. First, the hard truth: Your investors funded you based on a specific value proposition - two co-CEOs with complementary skills. Your partner taking a full-time job fundamentally changes that deal. Trying to downplay it or spin it will destroy trust faster than the job change itself. What you need to do: 1. Proactive disclosure (like, yesterday) Call or email your investors immediately. Don't wait for them to notice the LinkedIn update. Frame it as: "Situation has changed, want to be transparent" NOT "just a small adjustment to our arrangement" 2. Reality check the "still involved" claim I work with ETA buyers, and I can tell you: there's no such thing as "involved part-time" in a self-funded search at a business size that requires two people. Either he's parachuting in full-time post-acquisition or he's not. You need clarity on what "involved" actually means: Is he taking a GM role post-acquisition? (Then you need to assess if he can actually do it) Is he advising/board member? (Fine, but that's not a co-CEO) Is he hedging his bets? (That's the real issue) 3. Repositioning options Option A: Solo searcher with strategic advisor You become the sole CEO He transitions to advisor/board member role You'll need to address the operating experience gap he was filling (which can look good to funders/investors) Potentially bring in a fractional COO or commit to hiring a strong GM post-acquisition Option B: Pause and recruit new partner Be honest that the partnership dissolved Stronger than pretending nothing changed You might lose some time, but you keep credibility Option C: Independent sponsor model Reframe the search as you sourcing/evaluating deals Partner steps in as operator post-acquisition IF the right deal emerges Requires him to be genuinely ready to quit the job when you close Option D: End the search Sometimes the right answer Better than wasting investor capital on a compromised model DON'T: - Pretend he's still a full-time searcher when he's not - Discover at closing that he can't/won't actually step in as operator - Let investors find out through LinkedIn instead of from you - Assume "involved part-time" means anything concrete The real question: Why did he take the job? If it's because: He lost confidence in the search → That's a signal you should examine Better opportunity came up → Understandable, but changes the deal Risk tolerance mismatch → Critical to know now, not at closing Hedging because he's not sure YOU can find/close a deal → Really important to surface My take: This is salvageable if you're transparent immediately and have a credible new structure. It's NOT salvageable if you try to pretend nothing changed and your investors discover at closing that your "co-CEO operator" is working a corporate job. The best search investors will respect transparency and adapt. The worst thing you can do is let them feel misled. One more thing: If you do find a deal and he's supposed to step in as GM, do NOT skip the assessment phase. I see too many searchers assume their "operator partner" can just parachute in. Get objective validation that he can actually do the role in THAT specific business before you close. The last thing you need is to discover 3 months post-close that your part-time partner can't actually operate the business. Good luck. Rip the band-aid off fast.

Thanks for the tag Luke, I agree with what the others are saying. Get ahead of it right away and have a frank discussion with your partner and the investors as they will certainly view his role and commitment differently now.