NYC GenCorp Hierarchy Forum

[Anonymous User]

Would it be a mistake to go Deb over S&C with general corp interests that skew M&A or cap markets

Your life will turn out OK.

Def in a very fortunate position - will absolutely acknowledge that! But both firms seemed pretty great during interviews but Deb has the "polite" rep and S&C seems to have a little more negative reputation online, which scares me a little. Honestly liked the people at S&C a bit more but the rep is making me second guess that.

Re: S&C's negative reputation online, you might find this post helpful or reassuring: viewtopic.php?p=10481520#p10481524

[Anonymous User]

Would it be a mistake to go Deb over S&C with general corp interests that skew M&A or cap markets

Your life will turn out OK.

Def in a very fortunate position - will absolutely acknowledge that! But both firms seemed pretty great during interviews but Deb has the "polite" rep and S&C seems to have a little more negative reputation online, which scares me a little. Honestly liked the people at S&C a bit more but the rep is making me second guess that.

What matters most to you? Prestige? Clients? Quality of life? IF you care about the first two go to S&C; if you care about the third more then go to Deb.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be a mistake to go Deb over S&C with general corp interests that skew M&A or cap markets

Your life will turn out OK.

Def in a very fortunate position - will absolutely acknowledge that! But both firms seemed pretty great during interviews but Deb has the "polite" rep and S&C seems to have a little more negative reputation online, which scares me a little. Honestly liked the people at S&C a bit more but the rep is making me second guess that.

What matters most to you? Prestige? Clients? Quality of life? IF you care about the first two go to S&C; if you care about the third more then go to Deb.

I cannot understand why anyone wouldn’t prioritize quality of life, especially when comparing firms at this level (let’s be honest, there’s not going to be much of a career difference between associates at any V20 versus another solely due to the firm they are at). But what do I know.

[Anonymous User]

I realize this is off-topic, but since the previous anon brought up Paul Weiss . . . what do people think of that long piece Business Insider published about the Apollo-PW relationship? https://outline.com/mBRcDa

Is working for mega-PE shops truly as terrible as the article suggests?

Bump

As a PW corporate midlevel who does a lot (60%+) of Apollo work, I don't feel the piece is accurate at all. I'm not M&A, so maybe it's different there, but working for a client with which your firm has a great institutional relationship is a huge plus. The conflicts stuff is above my pay grade, but, as the piece points out, Apollo uses other firms when there is any question of independence. I get no sense we do anything or take any positions for them we wouldn't do for other clients.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be a mistake to go Deb over S&C with general corp interests that skew M&A or cap markets

Your life will turn out OK.

Def in a very fortunate position - will absolutely acknowledge that! But both firms seemed pretty great during interviews but Deb has the "polite" rep and S&C seems to have a little more negative reputation online, which scares me a little. Honestly liked the people at S&C a bit more but the rep is making me second guess that.

What matters most to you? Prestige? Clients? Quality of life? IF you care about the first two go to S&C; if you care about the third more then go to Deb.

I cannot understand why anyone wouldn’t prioritize quality of life, especially when comparing firms at this level (let’s be honest, there’s not going to be much of a career difference between associates at any V20 versus another solely due to the firm they are at). But what do I know.

.

[Anonymous User]

LW is one of the top banking shops but weil has pretty solid banking practice as well according to chambers
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12806:1
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12788:1

Capital markets wise you can also check chambers - I think its the same situation, LW is one of the top shops, but weil is also pretty good. if you have legit reasons to believe Weil is a better fit, go for it

The key difference is on lender/underwriter vs borrower/issuer concentration. LW has a very good lender and particularly underwriter-side practice in New York (similar to Cahill). Not all of their sponsor clients always use them for financing, though (e.g., I've seen Latham do the M&A deal but a finance partner from STB or K&E handle the borrower side of things a couple of times).

Deb is more a borrower/sponsor focus - they probably get some lender-side work, but most of their banking practice is servicing their PE firm clients. Weil has a bit more of a mix, with bankruptcy work thrown in.

My preference is for borrower/sponsor work, but it's useful to have a mix (especially at an early stage). As others have said, these are all good options.

[Anonymous User]

LW is one of the top banking shops but weil has pretty solid banking practice as well according to chambers
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12806:1
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12788:1

Capital markets wise you can also check chambers - I think its the same situation, LW is one of the top shops, but weil is also pretty good. if you have legit reasons to believe Weil is a better fit, go for it

The key difference is on lender/underwriter vs borrower/issuer concentration. LW has a very good lender and particularly underwriter-side practice in New York (similar to Cahill). Not all of their sponsor clients always use them for financing, though (e.g., I've seen Latham do the M&A deal but a finance partner from STB or K&E handle the borrower side of things a couple of times).

Deb is more a borrower/sponsor focus - they probably get some lender-side work, but most of their banking practice is servicing their PE firm clients. Weil has a bit more of a mix, with bankruptcy work thrown in.

My preference is for borrower/sponsor work, but it's useful to have a mix (especially at an early stage). As others have said, these are all good options.

don’t mean to derail the thread but can you elaborate on the major differences between borrower work and lender work? is one drafting and the other more review and negotiation? what sort of exit ops would borrowing (PE) set you up for vs underwriting (presumably mostly banking)

[Anonymous User]

LW is one of the top banking shops but weil has pretty solid banking practice as well according to chambers
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12806:1
https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ban ... :6:12788:1

Capital markets wise you can also check chambers - I think its the same situation, LW is one of the top shops, but weil is also pretty good. if you have legit reasons to believe Weil is a better fit, go for it

The key difference is on lender/underwriter vs borrower/issuer concentration. LW has a very good lender and particularly underwriter-side practice in New York (similar to Cahill). Not all of their sponsor clients always use them for financing, though (e.g., I've seen Latham do the M&A deal but a finance partner from STB or K&E handle the borrower side of things a couple of times).

Deb is more a borrower/sponsor focus - they probably get some lender-side work, but most of their banking practice is servicing their PE firm clients. Weil has a bit more of a mix, with bankruptcy work thrown in.

My preference is for borrower/sponsor work, but it's useful to have a mix (especially at an early stage). As others have said, these are all good options.

don’t mean to derail the thread but can you elaborate on the major differences between borrower work and lender work? is one drafting and the other more review and negotiation? what sort of exit ops would borrowing (PE) set you up for vs underwriting (presumably mostly banking)

Both sides entail a lot of drafting and negotiation.

Lender-side work is more concerned with managing the lender group, tending to agency ops, managing syndication or arrangement, making sure collateral and perfection is right, etc. At a higher end it’s knowing how and what will clear syndication, how to manage economics between the group/arrangers, being smart on intercreditor issues and the various “hot” issues that people care about.

Borrower side is (IMO) subject to a harsher learning curve because years 1-3 you’re a junior running ancillary docs and changes to papers/loan agreement and then years 4+ you’re expected to be savvy on financial definitions, tax issues, and a whole ton of other random substantive issues, so if you’re bad on the borrower side as a midlevel or senior it’s extremely obvious. Easier to hide on the lender side.

Exits are bank/direct lender on the lender side, PE/corporate on the borrower, although I’ve heard of AGC/DGC exits and some direct lender exits from the borrower too. Not too many bank exits but it’s doable.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK stands alone at the top but how are the other elite NYC shops (CSM, PW, S&C, DPW, STB, Debevoise) and the mega firms (K&E, LW, Skadden) viewed on the corporate side of things?

NY V10 associate here. In broad strokes, I think the tiers are something like:

WLRK > CSM/DPW/Skadden/SullCrom/STB > Debevoise/Cleary/K&E/LW/PW

Pretty much accurate

[Anonymous User]

I realize this is off-topic, but since the previous anon brought up Paul Weiss . . . what do people think of that long piece Business Insider published about the Apollo-PW relationship? https://outline.com/mBRcDa

Is working for mega-PE shops truly as terrible as the article suggests?

Bump

As a PW corporate midlevel who does a lot (60%+) of Apollo work, I don't feel the piece is accurate at all. I'm not M&A, so maybe it's different there, but working for a client with which your firm has a great institutional relationship is a huge plus. The conflicts stuff is above my pay grade, but, as the piece points out, Apollo uses other firms when there is any question of independence. I get no sense we do anything or take any positions for them we wouldn't do for other clients.

Is Apollo as tough of a client as the article seems to suggest? And if so, would you mind explaining what makes them particularly tougher than other PE fund clients?

[synergy]

I realize this is off-topic, but since the previous anon brought up Paul Weiss . . . what do people think of that long piece Business Insider published about the Apollo-PW relationship? https://outline.com/mBRcDa

Is working for mega-PE shops truly as terrible as the article suggests?

Bump

As a PW corporate midlevel who does a lot (60%+) of Apollo work, I don't feel the piece is accurate at all. I'm not M&A, so maybe it's different there, but working for a client with which your firm has a great institutional relationship is a huge plus. The conflicts stuff is above my pay grade, but, as the piece points out, Apollo uses other firms when there is any question of independence. I get no sense we do anything or take any positions for them we wouldn't do for other clients.

Is Apollo as tough of a client as the article seems to suggest? And if so, would you mind explaining what makes them particularly tougher than other PE fund clients?

Accidental anon.

[Anonymous User]

I realize this is off-topic, but since the previous anon brought up Paul Weiss . . . what do people think of that long piece Business Insider published about the Apollo-PW relationship? https://outline.com/mBRcDa

Is working for mega-PE shops truly as terrible as the article suggests?

Bump

As a PW corporate midlevel who does a lot (60%+) of Apollo work, I don't feel the piece is accurate at all. I'm not M&A, so maybe it's different there, but working for a client with which your firm has a great institutional relationship is a huge plus. The conflicts stuff is above my pay grade, but, as the piece points out, Apollo uses other firms when there is any question of independence. I get no sense we do anything or take any positions for them we wouldn't do for other clients.

Is Apollo as tough of a client as the article seems to suggest? And if so, would you mind explaining what makes them particularly tougher than other PE fund clients?

Accidental anon.

I think the main reason for the article (as an external observer) was Leon Black's ties to Epstein. There are PE funds that are seen as "worse" (i.e., more demanding, less pleasant, more aggressive to counsel on their side and on the other side, more demanding/abusive of their management teams, and maybe a little less scrupulous in their dealings) than some others. My take is that they're all such giant shops now that - a bit like a law firm - a lot of what you get will depend on the personalities you strike on your deal/in the group with which you're dealing.

Apollo in particular has been tarred by the way it handled certain of its investments during the 2009 crisis (especially Harrah's/Caesar's). As the article notes, they were also involved in Huntsman/Hexion - that led to a big DE MAE decision (probably the biggest before Akorn/Fresenius) and a settlement payment to Jon Huntsman, Sr of $1 billion. (My understanding is that Jon Huntsman Sr was considered one of the "good guys" of American business in the 80s and 90s - Adam Grant cites him in his "Give and Take" book as an example of gifted leadership, for example. Apollo reneging on that deal probably left a bad taste in a few people's mouths.)

As for what the article describes, I didn't see anything - other than the potential conflicts with Black - as being out of the ordinary for firms that do work for mega-PE. They pay fees that are higher than anyone else's (both per deal and on a volume basis) because they demand excellence and availability. This isn't anything new, or unique, to Apollo. (Have a look at https://thelawyerbubble.com/tag/richard-beattie/ for example. Dick Beattie was one of the early PE lawyers, worked in an era before cellphones and email when doing his deals, and still laments missed vacations. He's much wealthier than most associates and even partners will be today, but it's still telling.) Anyone who's done a few deals for PE clients will tell you about cancelled vacations, Saturday nights in the office, demanding/screaming partners passing on their stresses, and much else besides.

I've also no doubt that if it had been David Bonderman (Cleary), Steve Schwarzman or Henry Kravis (STB) or Tommy Lee (Weil) who'd been involved with Epstein in such a high-profile way, the firms with close relationships to their funds (in parentheses) would also have questions raised. It doesn't even need to be a PE fund - the stuff about CBS, Weil, and Moonves a couple of years ago raised some eyebrows. It’s probably not unrelated that when CBS and Viacom announced their merger in 2018, Cleary and Paul Weiss were representing CBS's associated interests (and Weil was nowhere to be seen).

It's hard not to get too close to decision-makers at big clients - there are big chunks of money riding on those relationships. PW's done pretty well to get as much as it has out of Apollo, while growing its public M&A practice and remaining close to best in class in certain litigation areas. (Not defending them per se - just responding to the query about whether anything in the article is out of the ordinary.)

[Anonymous User]

Where would Proskauer, Fried Frank, Willkie, Ropes and Gray NY, White and Case fall?

[Anonymous User]

is milbank the only v20 firm that sucks at corp?

[Anonymous User]

is milbank the only v20 firm that sucks at corp?

I'd add Cooley and Weil (and obv the lit firms like gibson and quinn).

[Anonymous User]

is milbank the only v20 firm that sucks at corp?

I'd add Cooley and Weil (and obv the lit firms like gibson and quinn).

If we're talking nation-wide, Gibson nor Weil suck. Quinn, Milbank, Cooley, and Covington are the only V20 firms not ranked in Chambers's Elite M&A rankings. Milbank isn't even ranked in the nation-wide Highly Regarded category either, although they're ranked in the NY ranking.

So, yeah Quinn and Milbank.

[Anonymous User]

Corporate =/= M&A

[Anonymous User]

is milbank the only v20 firm that sucks at corp?

I'd add Cooley and Weil (and obv the lit firms like gibson and quinn).

If we're talking nation-wide, Gibson nor Weil suck. Quinn, Milbank, Cooley, and Covington are the only V20 firms not ranked in Chambers's Elite M&A rankings. Milbank isn't even ranked in the nation-wide Highly Regarded category either, although they're ranked in the NY ranking.

So, yeah Quinn and Milbank.

Milbanks proj fin and commercial real estate groups are elite. Both are corporate