I'm interested in bankruptcy work (ideally doing more transactional work, though a bit of lit is fine). I'd like a mixed practice (thus no K&E/Weil) and would like to do distressed transactions in addition to pure bankruptcy (i.e. workouts, distressed M&A in addition to prepacks and chapter 11 stuff). It's possible that I wouldn't like bankruptcy work and am definitely not married to it, so having a pretty strong general corporate practice to fall back to is important to me. Where should I go?
(Culture wise, early opportunity and partner mentorship are important. I'm okay with a less social group and facetime requirements.)
(FWIW STB is pitching a "revitalized" bankruptcy group based on lateral partner hires from 1-2 years ago. BK practitioners: do you see them on stuff within the past 2 years?)
Akin v. PW v. STB Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Paul Weiss because it has both strong corporate and bankruptcy practices. Akin's much stronger in bk than STB but corporate is weaker. I have never seen STB in the bankruptcy space. The description of their PISG group reads like a completely different type of practice.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
STB if you want the strongest all-around corporate practice but PW if you are committed to bankruptcy. That said, it’s not clear *why* you would be committed to bankruptcy from your post, especially if you aren’t interested in Weil/K&E. Distressed buyouts is totally different from bankruptcy.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Mods: posting anonymous because I'm in KE/Weil bk group and this is based on my experience from that.
All of these are mixed practices.* In most biglaw bk groups, regardless of who you represent, a bankruptcy lawyer is specifically a bankruptcy lawyer. That means you won't be doing traditional transactional work (drafting a merger agreement, credit agreement, etc.) or traditional litigation (conducting depositions, examining witnesses, etc.). You focus on the bankruptcy aspects, which is going to involve transnational and litigation type work in virtually every representation. All of these firms (and all biglaw bk groups) are also going to do out-of-court workouts and distressed M&A (but again, as the bankruptcy specialist, not as someone drafting the merger agreement).
Personally, I'd go with PW or Akin. Simpson is a much less prominent group and don't see them on nearly as many matters (chambers supports this).
Based on your criteria, I'd go with PW. I've had good experiences with both groups, but Akin does a lot of creditors' committee work (probably the most lit focused of any representation).
*Although I don't work at any of them, so defer to someone who does.
All of these are mixed practices.* In most biglaw bk groups, regardless of who you represent, a bankruptcy lawyer is specifically a bankruptcy lawyer. That means you won't be doing traditional transactional work (drafting a merger agreement, credit agreement, etc.) or traditional litigation (conducting depositions, examining witnesses, etc.). You focus on the bankruptcy aspects, which is going to involve transnational and litigation type work in virtually every representation. All of these firms (and all biglaw bk groups) are also going to do out-of-court workouts and distressed M&A (but again, as the bankruptcy specialist, not as someone drafting the merger agreement).
Personally, I'd go with PW or Akin. Simpson is a much less prominent group and don't see them on nearly as many matters (chambers supports this).
Based on your criteria, I'd go with PW. I've had good experiences with both groups, but Akin does a lot of creditors' committee work (probably the most lit focused of any representation).
*Although I don't work at any of them, so defer to someone who does.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Anonymous User wrote:The description of their PISG group reads like a completely different type of practice.
Would love color on the distinctions between PISG/distressed transactions and bankruptcy. Sense I had gotten was both were done "in the shadow of bankruptcy" and therefore BK people were very involved in planning the transactions / it intimately involved the code. Was described to me as ultimately very similar to workout stuff, but it sounds like that's wrong.Anonymous User wrote:Distressed buyouts is totally different from bankruptcy.
To be clear: these are committees who are out of the money (i.e. not fulcrum securities)?Anonymous User wrote:
Based on your criteria, I'd go with PW. I've had good experiences with both groups, but Akin does a lot of creditors' committee work (probably the most lit focused of any representation).
Spoke to people in the practice who felt that Akin was a half-step behind in terms of sophistication of the work relative to PW. Thoughts?
Re: mixed practice, I meant a mix of creditor and debtor work.
Thank you all, this is super helpful.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
KE/Weil associate again.
Not all of your points were addressed to me, but will give my 2 cents.
*Out of court deals start the same as in court. Company needs to restructure in some way. So you get the bk lawyers involved, they do diligence, partners negotiate, figure out there is a path out of court. The bankruptcy lawyers will negotiate the restructuring terms, but outside of that, its all a corporate affair. Given the the bankruptcy team initiated all the diligence, and the deal could go south, the bankruptcy team is quarterbacking even though they have little involvement with most of the key documents.
*Distressed M&A. Here you have to break it up it two groups. FIRST. In court, many companies will sell some or most of their assets. So you will have a mini example of what I discussed in the out-of-court scenario. At its core, it is an M&A deal, but subject to bk court approval, and the bankruptcy lawyers know all the facts. So bk lawyers quarterback the deal, and review the key docs, but are really only high-level involved with what is going on. SECOND. You just have company that is buying a distressed company. Buyer is worried about bk risks. Here bk lawyers are not quarterbacking, they are just another speciliast. This is mostly a partner show, though sometimes partner might ask a first year some research questions. As I've gotten more senior (midlevel now), I see this more often. Partner just brings me in to help answer standard bk questions the m&a/debt/real estate lawyers are asking him/her.
*Point about debtor/creditor. Fine if you just don't want to do debtor stuff. My point was you seem to be using debtor as a proxy for more litigation and that's just not a good way to think about it. I'd say debtor counsel does more lit than certain constituencies (first lien creditor), but less than others (creditors' committee).
*Creditors' committee. They are appointed in (almost) every case to represent unsecured creditors. So they are fighting for people to get 15 cents when they were otherwise going to get 5. They do some transactional type things, but this is a very litigation oriented role (they object and sue in any and every way they can to get leverage).
*Akin/PW. For what it is worth, both of these firms have been pushing to do more debtor work (its the most profitable), and have done so successfully (Akin seems to be getting these roles more so). This is purely based on my own experience, but historically, akin was an unsecured/undersecured creditor shop. They've since expanded their debtor practice and now represent plenty of debtors as well. More creditor oriented than KE/Weil, but definitely a healthy mix of various roles that they play. PW is mostly known for representing ad hoc groups of creditors. There you are more looking at consortium of hedge funds that are probably fulcrum creditors(KE/Weil and Akin also represent these types of clients, so again, these firms are not that different than you seem to think). They, as I have said, are also actively building out their debtor practice, but they are behind Akin in that regard.
*Simpson. Just don't have much to say about them. They just aren't a big player in this space.
Not all of your points were addressed to me, but will give my 2 cents.
*Out of court deals start the same as in court. Company needs to restructure in some way. So you get the bk lawyers involved, they do diligence, partners negotiate, figure out there is a path out of court. The bankruptcy lawyers will negotiate the restructuring terms, but outside of that, its all a corporate affair. Given the the bankruptcy team initiated all the diligence, and the deal could go south, the bankruptcy team is quarterbacking even though they have little involvement with most of the key documents.
*Distressed M&A. Here you have to break it up it two groups. FIRST. In court, many companies will sell some or most of their assets. So you will have a mini example of what I discussed in the out-of-court scenario. At its core, it is an M&A deal, but subject to bk court approval, and the bankruptcy lawyers know all the facts. So bk lawyers quarterback the deal, and review the key docs, but are really only high-level involved with what is going on. SECOND. You just have company that is buying a distressed company. Buyer is worried about bk risks. Here bk lawyers are not quarterbacking, they are just another speciliast. This is mostly a partner show, though sometimes partner might ask a first year some research questions. As I've gotten more senior (midlevel now), I see this more often. Partner just brings me in to help answer standard bk questions the m&a/debt/real estate lawyers are asking him/her.
*Point about debtor/creditor. Fine if you just don't want to do debtor stuff. My point was you seem to be using debtor as a proxy for more litigation and that's just not a good way to think about it. I'd say debtor counsel does more lit than certain constituencies (first lien creditor), but less than others (creditors' committee).
*Creditors' committee. They are appointed in (almost) every case to represent unsecured creditors. So they are fighting for people to get 15 cents when they were otherwise going to get 5. They do some transactional type things, but this is a very litigation oriented role (they object and sue in any and every way they can to get leverage).
*Akin/PW. For what it is worth, both of these firms have been pushing to do more debtor work (its the most profitable), and have done so successfully (Akin seems to be getting these roles more so). This is purely based on my own experience, but historically, akin was an unsecured/undersecured creditor shop. They've since expanded their debtor practice and now represent plenty of debtors as well. More creditor oriented than KE/Weil, but definitely a healthy mix of various roles that they play. PW is mostly known for representing ad hoc groups of creditors. There you are more looking at consortium of hedge funds that are probably fulcrum creditors(KE/Weil and Akin also represent these types of clients, so again, these firms are not that different than you seem to think). They, as I have said, are also actively building out their debtor practice, but they are behind Akin in that regard.
*Simpson. Just don't have much to say about them. They just aren't a big player in this space.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
I am interested in litigation stuff -- the mixed lit/transacational nature of the practice is super appealing to me; I just also want to think commercially and not spend 50 hours a week on Westlaw (10-20 would be great, though). I've heard horror stories from people I trust about junior debtor work at K&E/Weil, that's all.Anonymous User wrote:KE/Weil associate again.
*Point about debtor/creditor. Fine if you just don't want to do debtor stuff. My point was you seem to be using debtor as a proxy for more litigation and that's just not a good way to think about it. I'd say debtor counsel does more lit than certain constituencies (first lien creditor), but less than others (creditors' committee).
*Creditors' committee. They are appointed in (almost) every case to represent unsecured creditors. So they are fighting for people to get 15 cents when they were otherwise going to get 5. They do some transactional type things, but this is a very litigation oriented role (they object and sue in any and every way they can to get leverage).
*Akin/PW. For what it is worth, both of these firms have been pushing to do more debtor work (its the most profitable), and have done so successfully (Akin seems to be getting these roles more so). This is purely based on my own experience, but historically, akin was an unsecured/undersecured creditor shop. They've since expanded their debtor practice and now represent plenty of debtors as well. More creditor oriented than KE/Weil, but definitely a healthy mix of various roles that they play. PW is mostly known for representing ad hoc groups of creditors. There you are more looking at consortium of hedge funds that are probably fulcrum creditors(KE/Weil and Akin also represent these types of clients, so again, these firms are not that different than you seem to think). They, as I have said, are also actively building out their debtor practice, but they are behind Akin in that regard.
Re: Creditor's committee: I've heard tell of terrorists/bomb-throwers at the bottom of the capital structure (Kasowitz is the name that comes up a lot there.) People seem to say that they throw around pretty baseless claims of e.g. fraudulent conveyance everywhere in the hopes of getting paid to go away. Is that a level below creditor's committee work, or is that just one style of doing it?
Also re: fulcrum vs. undersecured: aren't they the same thing? My limited understanding is that you're the fulcrum if you are getting more than $0 but less than par for your claims, which is the same (I think) as being undersecured. Is it just that committees want cash and ad hoc groups want equity, or something else? (What I'm really asking, I think, is that I understand there are two kinds of "fulcrum" reps: vulture funds who want to buy debt for 5% of par and get paid off at 8+% and private equity shops / strategic acquirers who seek to use debt to get significant equity stakes in the company. My sense is that these two kinds of work are very different. Is that so?)
Re: PW, do you see them doing committee work or not really?
Re: 363 sales, you would consider that distressed M&A rather than bankruptcy?
Thank you so much, seriously. I owe you one.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
As one of your interviewers, you should come to my firm as it is clearly better than the other two
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
*Fair enough re junior debtor work. As a first year, you can definitely get stuck on westlaw a lot. I more or less graduated from that as a second year, but I'm sure mileage various.
*I wouldn't say it is a level below. Generally, the less entitlement someone has, they are incentivized the rock the boat (if I'm getting 1 cent, why do I really care that much if I blow up everyone else's return. If I can just be a pain until I get 2 cents, I doubled my recovery). Typically, the official creditors' committee will be a bit more tame than a random hedge fund (they have fiduciary duties to all unsecured creditors; they are somewhat expect to have a certain decorum). That said, I've absolutely seen official committte's that I'd describe as terrorist.
*All undersecured means is the value of your collateral is less than the value of your claim. A fulcrom creditor is generally going be an undersecured creditor, but concepts are synonymous. More to your question, creditor reps are going to vary widely based on economics of the deal, but traditionally I'd say it goes something like this. At the top of your capital structure is usually a bank. They are usually very in the money and not that involved. The closer they get to being out of the money the more involved they are to the point where they will exert a lot of control on the process. Then you have your junior secured/unsecured holders. That debt is almost always held by distressed funds. Those guys are often kind of a hybrid between hedge fund and private equity. They mostly buy and sell debt it companys, but this inevitably leds to them being equityholders as a result of some past bankruptcy. And, many of them make direct equity investments as well. You never really see traditional private equity or strategics holding the debt. They can get involved in the 363 sale process though.
*I can't think of a time I've seen PW do official committee work. Their bread and butter is ad hoc committees of distressed funds. What type of debt those creditors hold can vary, but usually I'd say more likely those holders are undersecured. And, as I said, they are actively trying to build out debtor practice.
*Yea, a 363 is a type of distressed M&A. As a bankruptcy attorney, that's what I was describing in the first scenario. As debtor counsel, you'd facilitate the process, but the people doing the M&A stuff are M&A attorneys. Of course, you can be doing it from the buyer side too. Every firm does a bit of that, but usually you see buyers represented by firms that typically get smaller roles (top firms usually focus on representing debtor/major creditor constituencies. The host of other roles (buyers, vendors, landlords, etc). are represented by a wide variety of other firms. In short, yea you could represent a buyer at Akin/PW(KE/Weil other major players), but it isn't going to be a big part of your practice.
*I wouldn't say it is a level below. Generally, the less entitlement someone has, they are incentivized the rock the boat (if I'm getting 1 cent, why do I really care that much if I blow up everyone else's return. If I can just be a pain until I get 2 cents, I doubled my recovery). Typically, the official creditors' committee will be a bit more tame than a random hedge fund (they have fiduciary duties to all unsecured creditors; they are somewhat expect to have a certain decorum). That said, I've absolutely seen official committte's that I'd describe as terrorist.
*All undersecured means is the value of your collateral is less than the value of your claim. A fulcrom creditor is generally going be an undersecured creditor, but concepts are synonymous. More to your question, creditor reps are going to vary widely based on economics of the deal, but traditionally I'd say it goes something like this. At the top of your capital structure is usually a bank. They are usually very in the money and not that involved. The closer they get to being out of the money the more involved they are to the point where they will exert a lot of control on the process. Then you have your junior secured/unsecured holders. That debt is almost always held by distressed funds. Those guys are often kind of a hybrid between hedge fund and private equity. They mostly buy and sell debt it companys, but this inevitably leds to them being equityholders as a result of some past bankruptcy. And, many of them make direct equity investments as well. You never really see traditional private equity or strategics holding the debt. They can get involved in the 363 sale process though.
*I can't think of a time I've seen PW do official committee work. Their bread and butter is ad hoc committees of distressed funds. What type of debt those creditors hold can vary, but usually I'd say more likely those holders are undersecured. And, as I said, they are actively trying to build out debtor practice.
*Yea, a 363 is a type of distressed M&A. As a bankruptcy attorney, that's what I was describing in the first scenario. As debtor counsel, you'd facilitate the process, but the people doing the M&A stuff are M&A attorneys. Of course, you can be doing it from the buyer side too. Every firm does a bit of that, but usually you see buyers represented by firms that typically get smaller roles (top firms usually focus on representing debtor/major creditor constituencies. The host of other roles (buyers, vendors, landlords, etc). are represented by a wide variety of other firms. In short, yea you could represent a buyer at Akin/PW(KE/Weil other major players), but it isn't going to be a big part of your practice.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
You should only be considering Akin if you're all in on bankruptcy. They're not good at anything else in New York. Also they have a billable requirement, why would you deal with that unless you had to? If you want to do general corporate then you'll have the chance to do 3 rotations at STB or 2 years of unassigned generalist at PW. You'll need to make the bankruptcy-corporate decision at an earlier stage at PW (end of your summer program).
I wouldn't say PW is behind Akin on building out the debtor practice but it's really splitting hairs at this point. Neither firm regularly represents debtors and it will take a recession to meaningfully grow that half of the practice because Kirkland/Weil will continue to soak up most of those engagements in a healthy market.
ETA: BK is a cross-disciplinary practice. I dunno about the BK lawyers specifically but the rest of Akin isn't as strong as PW. Being able to rely on a more seasoned/experienced bench of litigators, finance/securities, M&A, tax and exec comp teams can only strengthen the BK group.
I wouldn't say PW is behind Akin on building out the debtor practice but it's really splitting hairs at this point. Neither firm regularly represents debtors and it will take a recession to meaningfully grow that half of the practice because Kirkland/Weil will continue to soak up most of those engagements in a healthy market.
ETA: BK is a cross-disciplinary practice. I dunno about the BK lawyers specifically but the rest of Akin isn't as strong as PW. Being able to rely on a more seasoned/experienced bench of litigators, finance/securities, M&A, tax and exec comp teams can only strengthen the BK group.
-
jkpolk
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Tbh it depends what you care about - there are defensible reasons for each. If you only care about bankruptcy bills generated and being involved in headline generating deals, you probably want to take Akin. If you want a big, fun summer class and classic big law new york experience (and maybe have interest in kicking the tires on traditional M+A) that's STB. PW is fine and if you prefer the culture there you should go there but its not for everyone.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
I guess my question would be -- what's the difference in practice? Sense I had was that ad hoc groups had different desires (ownership) compared to general UCC (maximize returns).Anonymous User wrote: *I can't think of a time I've seen PW do official committee work. Their bread and butter is ad hoc committees of distressed funds. What type of debt those creditors hold can vary, but usually I'd say more likely those holders are undersecured. And, as I said, they are actively trying to build out debtor practice.
Care to elaborate?jkpolk wrote:PW is fine and if you prefer the culture there you should go there but its not for everyone.
-
beepboopbeep
- Posts: 1607
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Anonymous User wrote:As one of your interviewers, you should come to my firm as it is clearly better than the other two
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
I'm like 75% you're my STB interviewer who lives in CT and 25% you're my PW guy who got lunch with me on my second look.Anonymous User wrote:As one of your interviewers, you should come to my firm as it is clearly better than the other two
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
If you want to work for Kirkland's farm league, go to STB. If you want to work on headline generating bankruptcy deals in which your clients are either agitators and/or recover nothing then go to Akin. PW is fine and if you want to go there you should go there but only if you know it's not gonna be a disaster.jkpolk wrote:Tbh it depends what you care about - there are defensible reasons for each. If you only care about bankruptcy bills generated and being involved in headline generating deals, you probably want to take Akin. If you want a big, fun summer class and classic big law new york experience (and maybe have interest in kicking the tires on traditional M+A) that's STB. PW is fine and if you prefer the culture there you should go there but its not for everyone.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Akin v. PW v. STB
Shit like this makes me glad I turned down my K&E offer.Anonymous User wrote: If you want to work for Kirkland's farm league, go to STB. If you want to work on headline generating bankruptcy deals in which your clients are either agitators and/or recover nothing then go to Akin. PW is fine and if you want to go there you should go there but only if you know it's not gonna be a disaster.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
