K&E investment funds group
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:02 pm
Anyone have insight about their investment funds group's culture, hours, promotion prospects, anything else you think may be relevant?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=281599
Aren't they a market leader in fund formation work though? I suppose the critique on the work is a critique in general of fund formation work (although I find it more interesting than deal work). Can you give a bit more context of your view? Like are you at K&E? Do you have examples of share partners backstabbing eachother in that group?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
I'm an associate at K&E (not the funds group) and can confirm everything but the share partners stuff. But all of the corporate work is boring as fuck, everyone gets worked to the bone and juniors always do boring shit.Anonymous User wrote:Aren't they a market leader in fund formation work though? I suppose the critique on the work is a critique in general of fund formation work (although I find it more interesting than deal work). Can you give a bit more context of your view? Like are you at K&E? Do you have examples of share partners backstabbing eachother in that group?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
Is there a difference based on office - e.g., NY or Chicago?Anonymous User wrote:I'm an associate at K&E (not the funds group) and can confirm everything but the share partners stuff. But all of the corporate work is boring as fuck, everyone gets worked to the bone and juniors always do boring shit.Anonymous User wrote:Aren't they a market leader in fund formation work though? I suppose the critique on the work is a critique in general of fund formation work (although I find it more interesting than deal work). Can you give a bit more context of your view? Like are you at K&E? Do you have examples of share partners backstabbing eachother in that group?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
It's also one of the best funds groups in the country so it's not a horrible place to start off. But it's a bit more of a niche practice to start off than say capital markets or M&A. So just make sure you like the practice e area.
example re: houston partner? is he even a share partner?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
NYC will always be worse. I would never want to be an associate in NYC.Anonymous User wrote:Is there a difference based on office - e.g., NY or Chicago?Anonymous User wrote:I'm an associate at K&E (not the funds group) and can confirm everything but the share partners stuff. But all of the corporate work is boring as fuck, everyone gets worked to the bone and juniors always do boring shit.Anonymous User wrote:Aren't they a market leader in fund formation work though? I suppose the critique on the work is a critique in general of fund formation work (although I find it more interesting than deal work). Can you give a bit more context of your view? Like are you at K&E? Do you have examples of share partners backstabbing eachother in that group?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
It's also one of the best funds groups in the country so it's not a horrible place to start off. But it's a bit more of a niche practice to start off than say capital markets or M&A. So just make sure you like the practice e area.
Yeah the DC group is pretty cool, and just hired a bunch of big Obama-era SEC names (Marian Fowler, Erica Jones, Alpa Patel). The culture is nothing like what others are saying ITT, but it's a very small group relative to other offices.Anonymous User wrote:Is there a difference based on office - e.g., NY or Chicago?Anonymous User wrote:I'm an associate at K&E (not the funds group) and can confirm everything but the share partners stuff. But all of the corporate work is boring as fuck, everyone gets worked to the bone and juniors always do boring shit.Anonymous User wrote:Aren't they a market leader in fund formation work though? I suppose the critique on the work is a critique in general of fund formation work (although I find it more interesting than deal work). Can you give a bit more context of your view? Like are you at K&E? Do you have examples of share partners backstabbing eachother in that group?Anonymous User wrote:recruits laterals from crappy firms who are super happy to have a prestigious job; works people to the bone. Has a ton of junior associate worthless work (sub books, etc.). same awful bro culture as the rest of K&E except the work isnt actually interesting. The one investment funds partner in Houston is a complete psychopath. share partners constantly backstabbing one another. It's a bad part of K&E. That's saying something.
It's also one of the best funds groups in the country so it's not a horrible place to start off. But it's a bit more of a niche practice to start off than say capital markets or M&A. So just make sure you like the practice e area.
Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
Out of boredom, i looked through some of your posts. It seems like you find almost all areas of law boring. There are definitely people who take what you say seriously, so saying that someone cannot possibly find something interesting is irresponsible.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
I don't care about what someone from Michigan law has to say.umichman wrote:Out of boredom, i looked through some of your posts. It seems like you find almost all areas of law boring. There are definitely people who take what you say seriously, so saying that someone cannot possibly find something interesting is irresponsible.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
Isn't this true of basically every area of transactional law though?Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
Yes.deepseapartners wrote:Isn't this true of basically every area of transactional law though?Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
What's your level of experience in this field? Be honest. If you think negotiating issues in side letters (especially with LP practice firms like Ropes and Jackson Walker) are about "stupid indemnities and reps" then that makes me think you have little experience. Side letter negotiations can include anything under the sun... recent hits include the amount of borrowing the fund can utilize (and what "borrowing" should mean for purposes of the limits), litigation disclosure, reporting (think ILPA), fund level investment restrictions with respect to geography, industry, etc., investment allocation if a manager has multiple funds, limits on a manager's debt fund making investments that conflict with a PE fund's companies interest (think a debt fund coming in with a conflicting agenda in bankruptcy to a PE fund's portfolio company)... it is actually pretty interesting from my perspective. Plus all the issues with AIFMD and marketing around the world, I see fund lawyers overseeing filings and compliance with Swiss, Korea, Japanese and other regs... Tax structuring can involve tons of parallel funds, downstream blockers, and all structured so the managers can get paid carried interest in a tax efficient way while certain investors can have options to make their investment through a blocked or unblocked entity... for the most part the tax lawyers tell the corporate lawyers what the issues are and then the corporate lawyers draft up a structure and run it by tax to make sure OK and then execute on it. None of it is cookie cutter. None of it is a bunch of forms you change for a deal. Based on the manager, investor base, strategy etc, and the SEC's focus on private funds... almost every fund involves thinking through complex issues. I have seen funds that have had to be drafted and structured as "sharia compliant" or evergreen and all the thought and initial drafting happens at the mid-level area. Sure you start as a junior reviewing subscription agreement questionnaires but I've seen that by year 2 or 3 fund lawyers are on calls with clients and negotiating while their peers in M&A are far from that level of responsibility.Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
In other words, Rahviveh nailed it.Anonymous User wrote:What's your level of experience in this field? Be honest. If you think negotiating issues in side letters (especially with LP practice firms like Ropes and Jackson Walker) are about "stupid indemnities and reps" then that makes me think you have little experience. Side letter negotiations can include anything under the sun... recent hits include the amount of borrowing the fund can utilize (and what "borrowing" should mean for purposes of the limits), litigation disclosure, reporting (think ILPA), fund level investment restrictions with respect to geography, industry, etc., investment allocation if a manager has multiple funds, limits on a manager's debt fund making investments that conflict with a PE fund's companies interest (think a debt fund coming in with a conflicting agenda in bankruptcy to a PE fund's portfolio company)... it is actually pretty interesting from my perspective. Plus all the issues with AIFMD and marketing around the world, I see fund lawyers overseeing filings and compliance with Swiss, Korea, Japanese and other regs... Tax structuring can involve tons of parallel funds, downstream blockers, and all structured so the managers can get paid carried interest in a tax efficient way while certain investors can have options to make their investment through a blocked or unblocked entity... for the most part the tax lawyers tell the corporate lawyers what the issues are and then the corporate lawyers draft up a structure and run it by tax to make sure OK and then execute on it. None of it is cookie cutter. None of it is a bunch of forms you change for a deal. Based on the manager, investor base, strategy etc, and the SEC's focus on private funds... almost every fund involves thinking through complex issues. I have seen funds that have had to be drafted and structured as "sharia compliant" or evergreen and all the thought and initial drafting happens at the mid-level area. Sure you start as a junior reviewing subscription agreement questionnaires but I've seen that by year 2 or 3 fund lawyers are on calls with clients and negotiating while their peers in M&A are far from that level of responsibility.Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
I guess if "stupid indemnities and reps" = what I wrote then sure draw that conclusion.RaceJudicata wrote:In other words, Rahviveh nailed it.Anonymous User wrote:What's your level of experience in this field? Be honest. If you think negotiating issues in side letters (especially with LP practice firms like Ropes and Jackson Walker) are about "stupid indemnities and reps" then that makes me think you have little experience. Side letter negotiations can include anything under the sun... recent hits include the amount of borrowing the fund can utilize (and what "borrowing" should mean for purposes of the limits), litigation disclosure, reporting (think ILPA), fund level investment restrictions with respect to geography, industry, etc., investment allocation if a manager has multiple funds, limits on a manager's debt fund making investments that conflict with a PE fund's companies interest (think a debt fund coming in with a conflicting agenda in bankruptcy to a PE fund's portfolio company)... it is actually pretty interesting from my perspective. Plus all the issues with AIFMD and marketing around the world, I see fund lawyers overseeing filings and compliance with Swiss, Korea, Japanese and other regs... Tax structuring can involve tons of parallel funds, downstream blockers, and all structured so the managers can get paid carried interest in a tax efficient way while certain investors can have options to make their investment through a blocked or unblocked entity... for the most part the tax lawyers tell the corporate lawyers what the issues are and then the corporate lawyers draft up a structure and run it by tax to make sure OK and then execute on it. None of it is cookie cutter. None of it is a bunch of forms you change for a deal. Based on the manager, investor base, strategy etc, and the SEC's focus on private funds... almost every fund involves thinking through complex issues. I have seen funds that have had to be drafted and structured as "sharia compliant" or evergreen and all the thought and initial drafting happens at the mid-level area. Sure you start as a junior reviewing subscription agreement questionnaires but I've seen that by year 2 or 3 fund lawyers are on calls with clients and negotiating while their peers in M&A are far from that level of responsibility.Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
You are just listing a bunch of issues and shit without discussing the actual work product.... the work product = bitch work = a big matrix or spreadsheet with "everything under the sun" as you put it for 100 investors, and figuring out WHATS MARKET and what we can GIVE = recording everything and compiling everything in binders for easy reference, that i nreality, nobody really wants to look at anyways (and will probably call and email you to explain shit since they dont want to read it)Anonymous User wrote: What's your level of experience in this field? Be honest. If you think negotiating issues in side letters (especially with LP practice firms like Ropes and Jackson Walker) are about "stupid indemnities and reps" then that makes me think you have little experience. Side letter negotiations can include anything under the sun... recent hits include the amount of borrowing the fund can utilize (and what "borrowing" should mean for purposes of the limits), litigation disclosure, reporting (think ILPA), fund level investment restrictions with respect to geography, industry, etc., investment allocation if a manager has multiple funds, limits on a manager's debt fund making investments that conflict with a PE fund's companies interest (think a debt fund coming in with a conflicting agenda in bankruptcy to a PE fund's portfolio company)... it is actually pretty interesting from my perspective. Plus all the issues with AIFMD and marketing around the world, I see fund lawyers overseeing filings and compliance with Swiss, Korea, Japanese and other regs...
"Draft up a structure" = drafting an LPA, possibly the most boring document in biglaw, setting defined terms and arguing over stupid shit, and then all the ancillary documents, adn doing that for every parallel fund, AIV, blocker... LOL at thinking thats interesting. look up an LPA and see if you can read it for more than 10 minutes without dozing off. the specialists will handle any actual substantvie issues. you are a MONKEY.Anonymous User wrote: Tax structuring can involve tons of parallel funds, downstream blockers, and all structured so the managers can get paid carried interest in a tax efficient way while certain investors can have options to make their investment through a blocked or unblocked entity... for the most part the tax lawyers tell the corporate lawyers what the issues are and then the corporate lawyers draft up a structure and run it by tax to make sure OK and then execute on it.
None of it is cookie cutter. None of it is a bunch of forms you change for a deal. Based on the manager, investor base, strategy etc, and the SEC's focus on private funds... almost every fund involves thinking through complex issues. I have seen funds that have had to be drafted and structured as "sharia compliant" or evergreen and all the thought and initial drafting happens at the mid-level area. Sure you start as a junior reviewing subscription agreement questionnaires but I've seen that by year 2 or 3 fund lawyers are on calls with clients and negotiating while their peers in M&A are far from that level of responsibility.
I bet you have a lot of friends.Rahviveh wrote:You are just listing a bunch of issues and shit without discussing the actual work product.... the work product = bitch work = a big matrix or spreadsheet with "everything under the sun" as you put it for 100 investors, and figuring out WHATS MARKET and what we can GIVE = recording everything and compiling everything in binders for easy reference, that i nreality, nobody really wants to look at anyways (and will probably call and email you to explain shit since they dont want to read it)Anonymous User wrote: What's your level of experience in this field? Be honest. If you think negotiating issues in side letters (especially with LP practice firms like Ropes and Jackson Walker) are about "stupid indemnities and reps" then that makes me think you have little experience. Side letter negotiations can include anything under the sun... recent hits include the amount of borrowing the fund can utilize (and what "borrowing" should mean for purposes of the limits), litigation disclosure, reporting (think ILPA), fund level investment restrictions with respect to geography, industry, etc., investment allocation if a manager has multiple funds, limits on a manager's debt fund making investments that conflict with a PE fund's companies interest (think a debt fund coming in with a conflicting agenda in bankruptcy to a PE fund's portfolio company)... it is actually pretty interesting from my perspective. Plus all the issues with AIFMD and marketing around the world, I see fund lawyers overseeing filings and compliance with Swiss, Korea, Japanese and other regs...
"Draft up a structure" = drafting an LPA, possibly the most boring document in biglaw, setting defined terms and arguing over stupid shit, and then all the ancillary documents, adn doing that for every parallel fund, AIV, blocker... LOL at thinking thats interesting. look up an LPA and see if you can read it for more than 10 minutes without dozing off. the specialists will handle any actual substantvie issues. you are a MONKEY.Anonymous User wrote: Tax structuring can involve tons of parallel funds, downstream blockers, and all structured so the managers can get paid carried interest in a tax efficient way while certain investors can have options to make their investment through a blocked or unblocked entity... for the most part the tax lawyers tell the corporate lawyers what the issues are and then the corporate lawyers draft up a structure and run it by tax to make sure OK and then execute on it.
None of it is cookie cutter. None of it is a bunch of forms you change for a deal. Based on the manager, investor base, strategy etc, and the SEC's focus on private funds... almost every fund involves thinking through complex issues. I have seen funds that have had to be drafted and structured as "sharia compliant" or evergreen and all the thought and initial drafting happens at the mid-level area. Sure you start as a junior reviewing subscription agreement questionnaires but I've seen that by year 2 or 3 fund lawyers are on calls with clients and negotiating while their peers in M&A are far from that level of responsibility.
OP if you got through this guys post without your eyes glazing over. maybe this is the right group for you!
I agree with this. Plus, I feel like a lot of work satisfaction is tied to the people you work with as well. Fund formation lawyers seem to me to be a little less intense (both work hours and personality wise) then deal lawyers. But that was just my impression.AANNOONN1234 wrote:Some people get great satisfaction from working through dry and complex material. Knowing you have the mental stamina to work through material almost no one can approach because it's too boring and being able to explain it in a way that cuts through the bullshit and jargon is satisfying. People have different definitions of "satisfying" or "meaningful."
Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
As someone that has been considering taking the jump to leave law entirely (no debt 3rd year), I get the following response from many of my friends in law/accounting/finance: all work sucks to some degree.TheSpecialist wrote:Rahviveh wrote:Op, you will be negotiating stupid indemnities and reps in side letters for dozens of investors. It's the ultimate paper pushing job. Also why do you think you would be doing the complex tax structuring (whatever tf that means). The tax people will do that. You will be the monkey inputting their comments and relaying them to the client. Be honest with yourself.Anonymous User wrote:Some people do find it interesting. I personally like fund formation work a lot. The negotiation, complex tax structuring, rules and regulations, etc.Rahviveh wrote:You can't possibly find this stuff interesting. Please do something else with your life
Just lol at any transactional attorney trying to talk crap about another group because its "paper pushing" or it's "monkey" work. Newsflash: That's all transactional work, particularly at the junior associate level. The business people are in charge and you're just there to paper the deal. It's all boring to the average person and everyone has varying interests in what they can tolerate or ideally find somewhat interesting. Because getting signature pages and sitting on 4 hour diligence calls, the majority of which you're simply introducing the various specialists/managing time is SOO incredibly important and interesting.