Kirkland's Role Advising 'Repeat Players' Highlights Risk of Business Conflicts in Deals
"It's not surprising to me at all that Kirkland has had to confront this," said one corporate law professor. "But usually they spot it early in the process."
June 11, 2020 at 03:49 PM
6 minute read
Kirkland & Ellis' resignation from a large debt deal involving multiple firm clients offers a conflicts lesson for firms seeking to rapidly expand client connections in finance and private equity deals.
"This is a real problem in the transactions finance space where there are repeat players and you have ties to each of them," said Eric Talley, a corporate law and finance professor at Columbia Law School and co-director of the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership.
Business conflicts can be difficult to identify at the beginning of a deal, experts said, putting law firms in a tough position later on in an acrimonious transaction.
Kirkland & Ellis, a dominant force in the deal space, was representing U.K.-based corporate travel company Travelport Worldwide in a $1 billion financing deal. The firm backed out of its advisory role to the company after debt investors that Kirkland also represents got into a legal tangle over the deal, according to a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal.
Elliott Management Corp. and private equity firm Siris Capital Group, which collectively made a $2 billion investment in Travelport Worldwide last year, planned on shoring up their investment during the pandemic with an additional $1 billion in debt financing.
But the financing was dependent on shifting some of the company's valued intellectual property assets away from its current lenders, which include Blackstone Group and Bain Capital, both of which Kirkland has represented in other matters.
The deal allowed those IP assets from Travelport to be put out of reach of previous investors and used as collateral for the investment from Elliott and Siris. This maneuver has been used before by Kirkland private equity clients, the WSJ reported, as fewer and fewer restrictions have been put on debt agreements in recent years.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is now representing Blackstone and Bain, among others, in legal action that accuses Travelport of violating the terms of its $2.9 billion first-lien loan and defaulting on its debt, according to the Journal.
Representatives from Kirkland said the firm had no comment on the matter.
It stands to reason, Talley said, that as big firms expand their private equity and finance practices and represent more and more entities in the space, they will invariably find conflicts.
"It's not surprising to me at all that Kirkland has had to confront this," he said. "But usually they spot it early in the process."
Indeed, it isn't uncommon for firms to negotiate against investors they represent in other matters. It is less common, however, that the advising firm would end up having to back out of its advisory role when the deal becomes too contentious, Talley said.
"This is not a conflict under the professional rules of conflict," said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law. "This is a business conflict, which can be harder for firms to identify at the onset of a deal."
Gillers said that while ethical conflicts during deals do occasionally rise, firms have traditionally been able to identify them early in the process by simply doing database searches on companies and their subsidiaries. They can then choose not to accept the work.
But business conflicts are harder, and Gillers said that those conflicts are top of mind at the firms he has worked with. "When I talk to law firms about conflicts, the issue of business conflicts often arises," he said. "Law firms are more concerned about business conflicts than ethical conflicts. Not because they are unethical, but because they are able to anticipate ethical conflicts. The can't as easily identify the business conflicts."
The type of maneuvers at play in the Travelport deal didn't happen overnight. Talley said that about 15 years ago, corporate debt contracts that had very light covenants on borrowing restrictions started to take hold. After the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which Talley said was somewhat aided by these slack borrowing regulations, those covenants were tightened up.
But, as time passed and markets and deals rebounded, the light touch returned. Lenders, eager to get what returns they could front the corporate debt market, accepted fewer and fewer protections when investing, setting up the scenario above.
"It has value to the borrower," Talley said of the loose contracts. "They can basically say I am going to drop these assets into a subsidiary and borrow again against it. If you are someone who already lent money to the borrower, you feel like you have been pushed to the back of the line."
Due to the mostly shrouded nature of private deals, it isn't always publicized when conflicts among legal counsel arise amid these contentions dynamics.
"It takes a legal fight for this to get into the papers," Talley said. "That said, in order to handle these potential conflict areas and assess whether those are manageable, you have to monitor all things coming in, and that gets more complicated when you grow large as a firm and have teams that overlap each other."
Gillers said the best way for firms to avoid those conflicts is simply to turn down business that could cause a problem. But, again, it isn't always possible to do so.
"When a law firm is retained and then sometime later it confronts a business conflict where multiple clients are unhappy with the law firm's work, even though that work is ethical, the firm needs to decide who it wants to antagonize the least," Gillers said.
|Read More:
Wachtell Leads the Pack in Global M&A Value as Kirkland Keeps Its Volume Edge
Kirkland's Reign Continues as Firm Hits $4 Billion in Revenue
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Ready to Respond': Wilmer's Robert Kimmitt and Covington's Stephen Rademaker Worked to Free U.S. Journalists
3 minute readNewly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Big Law Expected To Follow Milbank's Lead With Associate Year-End Bonuses
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 3Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 4In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 5Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250