FTI Consulting Case Interview Examples: Restructuring, Economics and Forensic Cases Solved (2026)

An FTI Consulting case interview is a finance-heavy business problem set by the segment you applied to: cash and debt in Corporate Finance, damages and statistics in Economic and Financial Consulting, and evidence in forensic work. FTI publishes no interview cases and only some segments use one, so this page gives you eight worked practice cases with every number recomputed, and says honestly which segments to expect a case in.

All eight are original cases written for Road to Offer and labelled that way. They follow the problems FTI says it works on: Turnaround and Restructuring, Business Transformation, antitrust and damages, and investigations. The FTI Consulting case interview guide owns the process, the video interview, the superday and the resume; this page is the practice, and it does not repeat the retail cash flow example the guide already works.

FTI-style practice cases at a glance

How an FTI case works: the interviewer gives a problem from the segment you applied to, usually a company with a financial or economic question, and you clarify, structure, ask for data, calculate and recommend. FTI does not publish the format, so facts below are labelled by source.

Start free now: StyleCraft European Profitability Reset is a profit recovery case: the European notebook division of a stationery group saw profit fall from €22M to €15M in two years, and the CEO wants a diagnosis plus a view on premium entry and offshore production. That is the cost and margin work FTI's Business Transformation and Turnaround teams describe. It has 9 questions, 4 with math, 3 exhibits, and fewer than 10 completed runs so far, so no median time yet. An AI interviewer runs it out loud, shows each exhibit when you reach it and scores seven categories; Case 1 below works its offshore savings. Your first full case is free when you create an account. A free account also gets one full run in every simulator inside the app: one complete run of each of our four McKinsey Solve practice formats (Red Rock, Sea Wolf, SFL Classic and SFL Island), a full Casey-style case, a full CCA-style diagnostic and a complete Bain SOVA-style diagnostic.

The plant case is adapted from the Wharton casebook, High Q Plastics from the Kellogg casebook and Cruise Line Acquisition from the Booth casebook. The library has no case in FTI's own style, so these are matched by case type to the cost, margin and footprint problems FTI's restructuring and transformation teams work on, and none is FTI's own material. More are in the case library, 92 cases in all. Every debrief scores seven categories: structure (25% of the score), quantitative analysis (20%), business judgment (15%), and problem understanding, exhibit reading, communication and synthesis (10% each), with feedback on every question. Median times come from completed runs between June 25 and September 22, 2026, and count runs, not people.

What does an FTI Consulting case interview look like?

Corporate Finance postings list case study interviews, so expect a finance-heavy case there; other segments test differently. FTI does not publish a case format, so this is what its own postings say, read on November 12, 2026.

• Official, Corporate Finance, London: the 2027 TMT Business Transformation internship lists an online application with a CV and no cover letter, a numerical and verbal reasoning test, pre-recorded video questions, three virtual case study interviews between mid January and February 2027, and offers before the end of February.
• Official, Corporate Finance, Amsterdam: the Restructuring graduate role lists a video interview, a virtual motivational and competency interview from January 18 to 22, 2027, then an in-person interview that includes a case study and a final interview from February 5 to 10.
• Official, the job itself: the Amsterdam posting says the team assesses financial distress, identifies liquidity challenges, analyzes capital structures, builds cash flow forecasts and debt capacity analyses, and runs Independent Business Reviews. Those are the topics Cases 2 and 3 practice.
• Reported, style: Hacking the Case Interview says FTI cases are candidate-led, and CaseBasix reports cases of 30 to 45 minutes with a closing recommendation of two or three supporting points. Both are prep sites, not FTI.

The loop is the same as at a strategy firm (clarify, structure, calculate, recommend), but the numbers are cash, debt and economics, and the recommendation is a stabilization step or an expert-style conclusion rather than a growth strategy. Now run one out loud the way an FTI interviewer expects:

Does FTI Consulting publish practice cases?

No: FTI's early careers page says nothing about cases, so these examples are original. On November 12, 2026 its early careers page had no text under the interview process or preparation headings and did not mention case interviews. It tells applicants to match their background and interests to the roles and practice teams they select.

What FTI does publish is the kind of question its teams answer. The London Economic and Financial Consulting internship posting lists four examples of questions its clients have asked:

• What impact did Uber have on the earnings of Black Cab drivers in London?
• What is a fair way to distribute money to artists from streaming service royalties?
• How much could the average energy consumer save if the GB energy market design changed?
• How much is the brand name of a Premier League football club worth?

None is an interview prompt, and FTI does not say they are used as one. They show that the economics work starts from a plain question and needs a method before a number. Case 7 turns the royalties question into a calculation.

Get your FTI Consulting prep plan

Build my prep plan

1

Learn the format

15 steps

• Learn how to caseGuided learning · 35 min
• The Case Interview MethodLesson · 8 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: AfrihealSkill drill · 5 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: Berty BankSkill drill · 5 min

Which FTI segments run a classic case, and which case covers each?

Corporate Finance runs the clearest cases, Economic and Financial Consulting probably does, and Strategic Communications and the London technology roles do not. The table says what the postings show and what they do not.

The Data and Analytics internship lists a skills test and video interview, a competency interview in late January and an assessment centre in February 2027. The Cybersecurity internship lists reasoning tests and video, a competency interview and a virtual senior managing director interview. A forensic role may still use a case; it is the segment with the least published, so ask the recruiter. The Compass Lexecon case interview guide, the NERA case interview guide and the Cornerstone Research case interview guide show how the economics firms that compete with FTI's economists run theirs.

The loop to run on every case

Read only the prompt, write your structure and your questions, then open the solution. Every case below uses the same five parts so you can compare each one to your own:

1. Prompt: the client, the decision and the constraint.
2. Clarifying questions: what you would ask and what the interviewer would plausibly say.
3. Structure: two to four branches you can test, not a template.
4. The math: every step substituted, with units.
5. Recommendation: a decision, one number, one risk and a next step.

If you have never run a case, the restructuring case interview guide and the turnaround case interview example teach the Corporate Finance logic, and the profitability framework and M&A case framework cover the rest. This page is for reps.

Case 1: A stationery division's profit fell by a third

Prompt. StyleCraft's European division sells mass-market notebooks and has €120M of revenue. Profit fell from €22M to €15M in two years. The CEO wants to know why, whether to enter premium notebooks, and whether to move manufacturing offshore. This is the library case StyleCraft European Profitability Reset, and the numbers below come from its own exhibits. It is a cost and margin problem of the kind FTI's Business Transformation teams describe.

Structure. Size the hole first: €22M to €15M is €7M, a 31.8% fall. Then take the CEO's three questions in turn: why profit fell (volume, price and cost in a shrinking segment), whether premium is worth entering (size, brand fit, investment) and what offshoring saves (line by line, net of what it adds). Work out which cost lines move before you read the table.

The math. Exhibit 2 gives each cost line as a share of the €120M and what a move to Vietnam would do to it.

Net: €23.232M + €8.64M - €6M = €25.872M saved. That is 21.56% of revenue, about 3.7 times the €7M decline, so the lever is large enough to close the gap on its own.

Recommendation. Offshoring is the lever to pursue, at roughly €25.9M a year before one-off costs. Two things stop you approving it as shown. The four cost lines add up to 100% of revenue, which leaves no room for the €15M of profit the division reports, so ask the interviewer to reconcile the exhibit. And the exhibit leaves out setup, plant closure and quality costs. Say both out loud, then give the next step: a cost-to-serve estimate by plant.

Run the StyleCraft case

Consumer GoodsHard

Practice this case free

Case 2: A distributor that hits its covenant before it runs out of cash

Prompt. A regional industrial distributor with $360M of revenue is losing cash as its sales fall. The lenders have a minimum liquidity covenant, and the CFO asks how long the company can run and what to do. This is original practice, not an FTI case, and all numbers are practice assumptions.

Clarifying questions. What does liquidity mean in the credit agreement? How is the borrowing base set? What is the weekly cash burn, and what is in it? Which levers are available this quarter? You get: liquidity is cash plus undrawn availability under the revolver, and the covenant floor is $10M. Cash is $12M. The revolver is a $40M commitment with $28M drawn, and the borrowing base is 85% of eligible receivables plus 50% of inventory, with $30M of eligible receivables and $18M of inventory. Operating cash burn is $1.2M a week, which already counts $0.3M a week of capex. Receivables are running off by $0.6M a week as sales fall.

The math.

1. Weekly liquidity loss: $1.2M burn plus 85% x $0.6M = $0.51M of borrowing base, so $1.71M a week.
2. Covenant breach: ($18.5M - $10M) / $1.71M = 5.0 weeks. Cash alone gives $12M / $1.2M = 10 weeks, and cash plus availability at the burn rate gives 15.4 weeks, so both naive runways are far too long.
3. Out of liquidity: $18.5M / $1.71M = 10.8 weeks.
4. Week 13 with no action: $18.5M - 13 x $1.71M = -$3.7M.
5. Levers over 13 weeks: stretch the $3.0M a week paid to top suppliers by one week for $3.0M once; sell $6M of inventory at cost for cash, which adds $6.0M but removes 50% x $6M = $3.0M of base, so $3.0M net; pull $4M of eligible receivables forward, which adds $4.0M but removes 85% x $4M = $3.4M of base, so $0.6M net; freeze capex, 13 x $0.3M = $3.9M. Total $10.5M.
6. Week 13 with all four levers: -$3.7M + $10.5M = $6.8M, which is $3.2M below the $10M floor.

Recommendation. Open talks with the lenders now for a covenant waiver and about $5M of committed new money, because the company breaches in about five weeks and the levers alone leave it $3.2M short at week 13. Do the supplier stretch and the capex freeze first; they add liquidity without touching the borrowing base. Collecting receivables early is worth $0.6M, not $4M, because every dollar collected removes 85 cents of borrowing base. The risk is supplier reaction to a one-week stretch, so ask which suppliers can ship cash-in-advance before the company relies on it.

Case 3: Who gets paid in a restructuring

Prompt. A manufacturer has $420M of debt and its lenders are asking FTI to say what the company is worth and whether it can carry its debt. EBITDA is $50M and capex is $15M. What should the lenders do? All numbers are practice assumptions.

Clarifying questions. What is the debt, in what order is it repaid, and at what rates? What multiple do comparable businesses trade at? Is the EBITDA stable? You get this capital structure and a comparable range of 4.0x to 6.0x EBITDA.

Structure.

• Can it carry the debt: leverage and coverage.
• What is it worth: enterprise value at a multiple range.
• Who recovers what: pay claims in order of priority.
• What fixes it: reduce debt to what the cash flow supports.

The math.

1. Leverage: $420M / $50M = 8.4x, far above the 5 to 6x that the FTI guide lists as a distress signal.
2. Coverage: $50M / $37.9M = 1.3x on EBITDA, and ($50M - $15M) / $37.9M = 0.92x after capex. The company cannot pay its interest from cash flow, with a gap of $2.9M a year.
3. Value: at 5.0x, enterprise value is $250M.
4. Recovery at $250M: first lien claims are $200M, so they recover 100%. The $50M left goes to the second lien, which recovers $50M / $100M = 50%. The unsecured notes recover 0%.
5. Recovery by multiple:

6. Debt the cash flow supports: at 4.0x the company carries $200M, which is exactly the first lien. Interest on the first lien is $4.0M + $13.5M = $17.5M, so coverage is $50M / $17.5M = 2.9x and cash flow after capex and interest is $35M - $17.5M = $17.5M a year.

Recommendation. Exchange the $220M of second lien and unsecured notes for equity in the reorganized company, which leaves $200M of first lien debt at 4.0x and turns a cash shortfall into $17.5M of free cash flow a year. The first lien is paid in full at any multiple of 4.0x or more, so it should support the plan, and the second lien is the real negotiation because it takes the equity value of about $50M at the midpoint. The risks are the multiple, since below 4.0x the first lien takes a loss, and the unsecured holders, who are out of the money at 5.0x and may hold out, so say what happens if an agreed exchange fails and the company needs a court process.

Case 4: Where a broadband operator should spend on churn

Prompt. A broadband operator in a flat market has 500,000 subscribers, loses 2.0% of them each month, and replaces every lost customer to hold the base steady. Management wants to spend $5M a year on a retention program. Is that the right call? This is a Business Transformation style problem in the technology, media and telecom sector, which FTI's London Business Transformation internship names. Numbers are practice assumptions.

Clarifying questions. What does it cost to win a customer, how is churn spread across the base, and what does the program do? You get: $400 to replace a lost customer (install, equipment and promotions), average revenue of $60 a month, 100,000 high-risk subscribers who churn at 5.0% a month, and a program that is expected to cut churn by 0.3 points across the base or by 1.0 point if aimed at the high-risk group.

Structure.

• Cost of churn today: customers lost times cost to replace.
• Value of the program: customers kept times that cost.
• Where the churn sits: the whole base or a segment.
• Test: how the client would know the program worked.

The math.

1. Customers lost: 500,000 x 2.0% = 10,000 a month, and replacing them costs 10,000 x $400 = $4.0M a month, or $48M a year.
2. Whole-base program: 0.3 points is 500,000 x 0.3% = 1,500 fewer losses a month, which is 1,500 x $400 = $0.6M a month, or $7.2M a year, against a cost of $5M, so a ratio of 1.4x.
3. High-risk segment: 100,000 x 5.0% = 5,000 losses a month, half of the total. A program that cuts that group by 1.0 point saves 1,000 a month, which is 12,000 a year and 12,000 x $400 = $4.8M.
4. If that targeted program costs $2M, the ratio is $4.8M / $2M = 2.4x, and the cost per customer kept is $2M / 12,000 = $167.
5. The $60 average revenue is a distractor in this setup: the base stays flat, so each kept customer saves a replacement rather than adding revenue.

Practice a technology case for FTI Business Transformation

TechnologyMedium

Start the technology case

Recommendation. Fund the targeted program first, at about $2M, because it returns 2.4x against 1.4x for the whole base and is cheaper to test. Run it against a held-out group of the high-risk customers for three months before spending the other $3M. The risk is that the 1.0 point reduction is an assumption: if the program only cuts churn by 0.4 points in that group, savings are $1.9M and it no longer pays.

Case 5: Will a merger of two mid-sized rivals draw an antitrust challenge?

Prompt. A client plans to buy a competitor, and its lawyers have asked FTI's economists whether regulators are likely to challenge the deal. Five firms sell the product. This is the shape of antitrust work in an economic consulting segment; the numbers are made up.

Clarifying questions. Which market are we talking about, and who is in it? Do imports compete? How do customers switch? You get market shares of 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10%, and the client is the 20% firm buying the 15% firm.

Structure.

• Define the market: who the customers can switch to.
• Measure concentration before and after.
• Test how much the two firms compete directly.
• Look for what could offset it: entry, imports, efficiencies.

The math. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is the sum of squared shares in points.

1. Before: 30 x 30 + 25 x 25 + 20 x 20 + 15 x 15 + 10 x 10 = 900 + 625 + 400 + 225 + 100 = 2,250.
2. The change from merging firms with shares a and b is 2 x a x b, so 2 x 20 x 15 = 600, and the new HHI is 2,850. Check: 900 + 625 + 35 x 35 + 100 = 900 + 625 + 1,225 + 100 = 2,850.
3. The merged share is 35%.
4. The 2023 US Merger Guidelines treat a market above 1,800 as highly concentrated, presume a merger anticompetitive when it raises HHI by more than 100 in such a market, and also presume it anticompetitive when the new firm's share is above 30% with a rise of more than 100. This deal trips both on these shares.
5. Widen the market: suppose imports supply 20% of sales through ten small sellers at 2% each, so the five domestic shares become 24, 20, 16, 12 and 8. Before: 576 + 400 + 256 + 144 + 64 + 10 x 4 = 1,480. After, with 16 and 12 merging: change 2 x 16 x 12 = 384, new HHI 1,864, merged share 28%. The share test no longer applies, but 1,864 is still above 1,800 with a rise of 384.
6. Direct competition: if 40% of customers lost by the buyer would switch to the target and the target earns a 30% margin, the buyer's incentive to raise price is about 0.40 x 30% = 12% of its price, a simple upward pricing pressure measure.

Practice an acquisition case for FTI

Consumer ElectronicsMedium

Start the acquisition case

Recommendation. Tell the client the deal will be scrutinized: on the narrow market it trips both presumptions, and on a market that includes imports it still clears the HHI line by only 64 points. The work is to show the broad market is the right one and that the two firms are not close substitutes, using customer switching data, not shares. The risk is the market definition itself: if customers do not treat imports as substitutes, the narrow numbers hold. These thresholds are US ones and were published on December 18, 2023, so check the current guidelines and the jurisdiction before using them in a real matter.

Case 6: How much did a cartel overcharge?

Prompt. Five sellers of an industrial input were found to have fixed prices for 36 months. Their customers have sued, and the sellers' lawyers ask FTI how large the damages claim really is. The plaintiffs say $122M. This is a Valuation and Damages style problem, with practice numbers.

Clarifying questions. What was sold, at what prices, and what happened to costs and to prices elsewhere? You get: sales of $800M to affected customers during the cartel, an average price before the cartel of $100 a ton and $118 during it, input costs that rose 8% over the period, and a comparable region with no cartel where prices rose 6%.

The math.

1. Plaintiff's figure: $118 - $100 = $18 a ton on every ton, which makes the whole price rise an overcharge.
2. Volume: $800M / $118 = 6.78M tons, and 6.78M x $18 = $122M, which is where the claim comes from.
3. Cost-based benchmark: costs rose 8%, so a competitive price would have been about $100 x 1.08 = $108, and the overcharge is $10 a ton. Damages: 6.78M x $10 = $67.8M.
4. Comparison region: a 6% rise gives a but-for price of $106, an overcharge of $12 a ton, which is 11.3% of the but-for price and 10.2% of the price paid. Damages: 6.78M x $12 = $81.4M, or $800M x 10.2%.
5. Sensitivity: if the comparison region's prices rose 10%, the but-for price is $110, the overcharge is $8, and damages are $800M x 8 / 118 = $54.2M.
6. The gap between the plaintiff's figure and the comparison-region figure is $122M - $81.4M = $40.7M.

Recommendation. Put the defensible range at $68M to $81M and show the work: the plaintiffs' $18 a ton treats an 8% cost increase as if it were collusion. The conclusion is only as good as the benchmark, because moving the comparison region's price rise from 6% to 10% takes the figure from $81M to $54M, so spend the effort testing whether that region is truly comparable. Also ask what law applies: some jurisdictions let a seller argue that customers passed part of the overcharge on to their own buyers, and others do not, which changes the answer without changing the arithmetic.

Case 7: A fair way to split streaming royalties

Prompt. A streaming service pools subscription revenue and pays artists from it. Artists say the rule is unfair and a regulator asks what a fair split would be. This is one of the example questions in FTI's London Economic and Financial Consulting posting, turned into a practice case with made-up numbers.

Clarifying questions. What is being split, by what rule today, and what does fair mean to the person asking? You get: three subscribers each pay $10, so the pool is $30, and today the pool is split in proportion to total streams ("pro rata"). Subscriber 1 played 10 streams, all of artist Z. Subscriber 2 played 90 streams, 80 of artist X and 10 of artist Y. Subscriber 3 played 100 streams, all of artist X.

Structure.

• Define the options: pro rata across all streams, or each subscriber's $10 split by that subscriber's own streams ("user-centric").
• Compute each artist's payout under each rule.
• Compare who gains and who loses.
• Test the rule against the objective: reward artists in proportion to the listeners they attract, or the plays they get.

The math.

1. Total streams: 10 + 90 + 100 = 200. X has 80 + 100 = 180, Y has 10, Z has 10.
2. Pro rata: X gets 180 / 200 x $30 = $27.00, Y gets 10 / 200 x $30 = $1.50, and Z gets $1.50.
3. User-centric: subscriber 1's $10 goes to Z. Subscriber 2's $10 splits 80 / 90 to X ($8.89) and 10 / 90 to Y ($1.11). Subscriber 3's $10 goes to X. So X gets $18.89, Y $1.11 and Z $10.00.
4. Change from pro rata to user-centric: X -$8.11, Y -$0.39, Z +$8.50. The total stays $30.

Recommendation. Do not call either rule fair in itself: pro rata pays for plays, so heavy listeners decide where most money goes, and user-centric pays for how each subscriber spreads their own $10, so a light listener has the same weight as a heavy one. If the objective is that each subscriber's money goes to the artists that subscriber chose, user-centric does that, and it moves $8.50 of the $30 here to the artist only the light listener plays. The risk is that three subscribers prove nothing, so ask for the real distribution of streams per subscriber before recommending a change, and check how each rule treats artificial streams, since one bot account would claim a whole $10 under user-centric and a small share of the pool under pro rata.

Case 8: How big is the problem in a pile of payments

Prompt. A company's lawyers suspect duplicate and fictitious vendor payments in accounts payable and ask FTI how big the problem might be. It paid 48,000 invoices worth $410M last year. FTI reviews a random sample. This is the shape of a forensic and investigations engagement, with practice numbers.

Clarifying questions. What is the sample, what counts as an issue, and who directs the work? You get: a random sample of 400 invoices worth $3.4M in total, of which 12 are confirmed duplicates or payments to vendors that do not exist, and those 12 total $310,000. Hacking the Case Interview reports that consultants in this segment often work alongside legal teams, so confirm who instructs the work and preserve the data before testing.

The math.

1. Rate by count: 12 / 400 = 3.0%, so 3.0% x 48,000 = 1,440 invoices.
2. Average invoice: $410M / 48,000 = $8,542, so the count method gives 1,440 x $8,542 = $12.3M.
3. Rate by dollars: $310,000 / $3,400,000 = 9.1%, so 9.1% x $410M = $37.4M. The flagged invoices average $310,000 / 12 = $25,833 against $3.4M / 400 = $8,500 for the sample, which is why the two methods differ.
4. Sampling error on the count rate: the standard error is the square root of 0.03 x 0.97 / 400 = 0.85 points, so a 95% range is 3.0% plus or minus 1.7 points, which is 1.3% to 4.7%, or about 640 to 2,240 invoices.
5. The dollar estimate is noisier than the count estimate, because it rests on 12 invoices that vary in size.

Recommendation. Tell the lawyers the exposure is somewhere between about $12M and $37M and that the sample cannot narrow it further. To narrow it, review every invoice above a size cutoff, because the large payments carry most of the value, and sample only the small ones. Run tests that find the pattern behind the 12 as well: several payments of the same amount to the same vendor, vendors that share a bank account or address with an employee, and amounts just under an approval limit. The risk is an overreach: a flagged invoice is a lead, not a conclusion, so report confirmed items and estimates separately.

How do you turn these cases into a prep plan?

Run each case once cold, then repeat only the step that broke. Cases 1, 3 and 4 test cost, cash and debt, Case 2 is a footprint-style profit bridge, Cases 5 to 7 test economic reasoning, and Case 8 tests estimating from a sample. The plan below takes about two weeks for the segment you chose.

Match the order to your segment. For Corporate Finance, do Cases 1 to 3 first, add the case interview math practice page for percentages, and read the Alvarez and Marsal practice cases for a peer firm that also hires into restructuring. For Economic and Financial Consulting, do Cases 5 to 7 and review the numerical reasoning test guide, since the postings list reasoning tests before any interview. For Strategic Communications, practice timed writing and numeracy, not cases, and use the HireVue interview guide for the recorded questions. If a take-home or written case is possible for your role, the written case interview guide covers the format.

For process, the video interview, the superday and the resume, use the FTI Consulting case interview guide. The behavioral interview guide builds the stories every segment asks for, the consulting interview prep timeline spreads the work over weeks, and the case interview examples hub collects worked cases from other firms.

Turn this guide into a FTI Consulting plan

Build my prep plan

1

Learn the format

15 steps

• Learn how to caseGuided learning · 35 min
• The Case Interview MethodLesson · 8 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: AfrihealSkill drill · 5 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: Berty BankSkill drill · 5 min

Sources and further reading (checked November 12, 2026)

• FTI Consulting: 2027 Summer Internship, TMT Business Transformation, Corporate Finance, London (CV, reasoning test, video questions, three virtual case study interviews, offers before the end of February 2027)
• FTI Consulting: 2027 Graduate Associate, Restructuring, Corporate Finance, Amsterdam (video, competency interview, in-person case study, the liquidity, capital structure and cash flow forecast work)
• FTI Consulting: 2027 Summer Internship, Economic and Financial Consulting, London (reasoning tests, assessment centre with group exercise, the four example client questions)
• FTI Consulting: 2027 Summer Internship, Strategic Communications, London (writing, grammar and numeracy tested, three-question video, not a management consulting role)
• FTI Consulting: 2027 Summer Internship, Data and Analytics, London (skills test, video, competency interview, assessment centre) and Cybersecurity, London (reasoning tests, video, competency interview, senior managing director interview)
• FTI Consulting: Early careers (no text under the interview process heading; no mention of cases)
• FTI Consulting: Services (Turnaround and Restructuring, Valuation and Damages, Antitrust, Investigations and Monitorships, Business Transformation)
• FTI Consulting: About (crisis and transformation positioning; scale figures)
• TargetJobs: Seven tips for the FTI Consulting application process from the firm's recruiters (October 17, 2023; an advertising feature funded by FTI; the economic and financial consulting case-study interview and the written assessment in Strategic Communications)
• FTC and DOJ: 2023 Merger Guidelines, Guideline 1 (HHI above 1,800, a rise of more than 100, a share above 30%; issued December 18, 2023)
• FTI Consulting Interview: The Complete Prep Guide, Hacking the Case Interview (July 8, 2026; reported candidate-led cases and six reported case prompts; a prep site, not FTI)
• FTI Consulting Interview Guide, CaseBasix (August 20, 2026; reported 30 to 45 minute cases and six case prompts; a prep site, not FTI)
• FTI Consulting Interview Guide, PrepLounge (November 26, 2024; general process and 30 to 60 minute candidate-led cases; no sample cases; a prep site, not FTI)