Related Posts
More Posts
Additional Posts in Big Law
Thoughts on Everlaw vs DISCO?
Do you think Milbank hate DPW?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Thoughts on Everlaw vs DISCO?
Do you think Milbank hate DPW?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

Coach
I’d say the opposite. And a sign that your firm cares about the sponsor and not the portfolio company.
No. By the time a sponsor owned company is insolvent, there could very well be conflicts between the company and the Sponsor. So it’s a sign that the firm is more interested in keeping the relationship with the Sponsor than the company, which is not atypical.
Coach
OP, as just some of many potential examples, sponsors typically want releases as part of the company’s plan. There will be an investigation into potential claims against the sponsor before that release is approved. The sponsor may also be contributing value to the plan, or that may be the end of its connection to the company. It will want its usual counsel representing it, and not the company.
Ok thanks guys, appreciate your help!