TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CharlesT47" data-source="post: 223492" data-attributes="member: 41021">Hi [USER=36777]@Andrei Radu[/USER] , thanks for your response. I've been thinking about what you said here. I just have two questions.First, does the private credit boom not diminish the bargaining position of lenders somewhat? In the sense that if sponsors are unhappy with the terms of the bank loan, they could equally approach private credit funds who can often offer substantial funding as well. This is despite the fact that the interest rates are higher.Second, I've been trying to find more information on 'sponsor-designated' law firms. I can't seem to find many updated articles (Most are from a few years ago) However, my understanding is that the PE sponsor is the one who decides who represents the bank. This has been criticised for the inherent conflict of interest, as PE sponsors will pick firms that are friendly to their terms. Does this practice still occur to this day? If so, does this not show that lender-sided firms don't actually have that much bargaining power? If they were to push back hard, the PE sponsor would choose a different firm next time around.This comes with the caveat that Davis Polk does not engage in any of this kind of work. They only do big-ticket M&A and it would be detrimental to their brand if they were to cave to pressure immediately. Which firms tend to be these sponsor-designated law firms?Edit: Actually, I've just looked at their legal 500 page and the description of partner Luke McDougall is that he is often the designated lender counsel. I am very confused then. Is my analysis about the inherent conflict of interest then incorrect? Or am I missing something here. If anyone could explain I would appreciate this.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread