Let's talk Project Finance Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm currently practicing leverage finance and have been wondering about transitioning to PF. I was hoping that folks in PF could share their experience, especially regarding the following perceptions (perhaps somewhat naive) I have in PF.

- Lawyers have a more significant role in the overall transaction compared lawyers in M&A or other lev fin (as discussed in an older post, lawyers tend to be a glorified scrbie for the biz folks) transactions since the fate of the deal would often depend on legal hurdles due to the cross-jx nature of many deals and nacent legal issues to deal with on each transaction.
- PF would have predictable and manageable hours once a deal begins since most of them take at least 2-3 months to close.
- PF would open doors to opportunities at international organizations working with developed countries or funds specializing in infrastructure (as either business or legal position).

Also, it'd be helpful if you could let me know which city you're in.

Thanks a lot and apologise for any typos in advance as I'm posting from my phone.

[Anonymous User]

senior associate here working in niche field of project finance.

I think your first point is true, although don't have much experience in M&A or general finance so can't really say.

I have found the hours to be more predictable (not necessarily less though). Once we get a green light we continue to closing. there is not a lot of stop and go like in M&A. however, many times a client comes to us pretty late in the "project" and we have to close the financing in a couple weeks, where its a mad dash to the finish line (I'm not sure where you get the idea it takes minimum 2-3 months to close - we work as long as necessary to close when the client needs the financing by). but it's not like M&A where the deal drags on for 6 months and you have no idea which parts will be busy.

I thought your third point re exit points was true when I entered the field but that has no been my experience. I can't speak to international organizations working with developed countries as that is not the type of "projects" I work on. with respect to transitioning to some type of infrastructure role on the bus side (or legal side), this is very rare. with respect to the bus side, a lawyer wouldn't know how to really correctly value the project so I'm not sure what value I would bring to an infrastructure fund (although I guess you could pick it up). also I think project finance is VERY relationship heavy on the business side from what I've seen. the most valuable business guys in my space are the ones who know everyone and can get a deal together. with respect to in-house roles there are not a lot to go around in the project finance space. these companies don't need large legal teams.

[Anonymous User]

Totally depends on the type of project finance you're doing. What you're saying seems to be assuming large-scale infra PF that is heavily international. I agree the first two points are probably correct to a certain degree in that particular type of project finance. Again though more predictable hours (or hours you can be more in control of) =/= fewer hours. International PF lawyers also travel very frequently. Traveling IME makes the hours harder, although others feel differently so YMMV.

Like the other poster, I can't speak to international orgs or infra funds as exit options. But in the energy space (where I work) a lot more companies are building up their in-house practices so they limit their need for outside counsel dramatically. So those would be the most common exit opps, but by no means are they necessarily the cushy in-house jobs that other industries have in abundance. The hours for both in-house and outside counsel are really unpredictable because the companies constantly change how they are prioritizing deals and aspects of deals. So I think I take the exact opposite view of the poster above -- we can often have start/stops, there are often times aspects of the deal that are flaring up and putting others on the backburner, etc.

I would be interested to hear from the senior associate who posted above what "type" of PF he does and as to what the most common exit opps he sees are since he doesn't see a lot of in-house opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

What about more general in-house exit options? I know some PF involves a good amount of M&A. Do you think that can help open more exit option doors?

For the above posters, do you have plans at some point to exit BIgLaw (assuming that's where you are now)? If so, where are you looking?

Not OP btw.