Alexander J. Romano

Kirkland & Ellis advised O2 Investment Partners, a private equity firm investing in growth-oriented, privately-held businesses in the North American lower middle market, on the fundraising for O2 Investment Partners Fund V (Fund V) with $670 million in capital commitments. Read O2 Investment Partners’ press release The Kirkland team included investment funds lawyers Dan McQuade, Michael Black, William Ballentine, Kendall Kilberger and Allie Sopp; investment funds regulatory lawyers Nicholas Hemmingsen, Danielle Sartain and Matt Davis; investment funds ERISA lawyer Christine Matott; tax lawyers Dan Meehan and Florian Schütte; and financial services regulatory lawyers Albert Weatherill, Sky Kim and Matt Dixon-Ward.

Mar 3

1 min

Nearly two dozen former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorneys are among those urging the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to the agency collecting disgorgement from those accused of wrongdoing without first identifying victims of the alleged fraud at hand. The attorneys, who include Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner Michael Piazza and Dickinson Wright PLLC's Jacob Frenkel, said the SEC's current view of disgorgement "risks eroding the very rule of law they once worked to uphold." Nick Morgan of Investor Choice Advocates Network, himself a former SEC attorney, filed the brief on behalf of his fellow attorneys on Monday. He said in a post on ICAN's website Tuesday that the Supreme Court "has the opportunity to force the agency back inside the boundaries Congress drew." "Congress gave the SEC the tools it needs to hold bad actors accountable," Morgan said in the post. "The problem is that the SEC has been reaching past those tools to avoid the work they require." The attorneys argued in the brief that the remedy the SEC is seeking against Ongkaruck Sripetch and other alleged fraudsters is a civil penalty, which requires the agency to give defendants an opportunity to defend themselves before a jury. "Disgorgement untethered from investor harm serves no restorative function; it punishes and deters, making it functionally identical to a civil penalty," the attorneys said. The SEC declined to comment Tuesday. Sripetch and the SEC both urged the Supreme Court to hear the case after the Ninth Circuit split with the Second Circuit in upholding a $2.2 million disgorgement against Sripetch, who the SEC says profited from a pump-and-dump scheme involving at least 20 penny stock companies. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the split in its ruling, saying it disagreed with the Second Circuit's view that disgorgement requires a showing that investors suffered pecuniary harm. The SEC told the justices last year that disgorgement does not solely exist to return money to victims but is also a remedy that ensures wrongdoers like Sripetch aren't allowed to keep the profits from their wrongdoing. Frenkel of Dickinson Wright told Law360 on Tuesday it is not always true that the people from whom the SEC seeks disgorgement have been accused of any wrongdoing. He said he has a client who is facing a $44,000 disgorgement order due to alleged misconduct by her ex-husband despite never having identified any victims. "Any case before the Supreme Court that can curtail further the SEC's rampant abuse of disgorgement and pre-judgment interest cries out for weighing in to advocate for reinforcing and expanding the equitable requirements the Court established in Liu," Frenkel said in an email, referencing the last time the high court limited the SEC's disgorgement powers in 2020 in Liu v. SEC. Piazza of Gibson Dunn didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In addition to the brief filed by the former attorneys, Sripetch also received the backing Monday of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Cato Institute. Both organizations said the court determined in Liu that not only must a disgorgement award be limited to a wrongdoer's net profits, but that it also must also be "awarded for victims." "Clarifying that the SEC must show victims suffered losses to seek disgorgement, as the court should, would reaffirm the broader principle that narrowly interpreting grants of executive power is necessary to ensure fidelity to the rule of law and prevent executive overreach," the Cato Institute said in its brief. The SEC and any supporters of the agency's position have yet to file their briefs before the high court. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on April 20. The former SEC attorneys are represented by Nicolas Morgan of ICAN. The Cato Institute is represented by H. Hunter Bruton, John Gibbons and Noel Hudson of Smith Anderson Blount & Jernigan LLP. The Chamber of Commerce is represented by Janet Galeria and Matthew P. Sappington of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, and Adam G. Unikowsky and Daniel S.G. Schwei of Jenner & Block LLP. The SEC is represented by D. John Sauer of the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General, and by its own Jeffrey Finnell, Tracey Hardin, Daniel Staroselsky and Kerry Dingle. Sripetch is represented by Daniel L. Geyser and Michael Qian of Haynes Boone, and Kenneth P. White and Tyler Creekmore of Brown White & Osborn LLP. The case is Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, case number 25-466, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mar 3

3 min

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “We have written to your firm three times previously seeking documents and answers regarding this corrupt bargain, and Kirkland has provided no responsive information or records in response to any of these letters,” the latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “In light of Kirkland’s failure to meaningfully respond, and your firm’s potential violation of federal law, we seek additional information about your firm’s contacts with Mr. Boris Epshteyn and details of your work for the federal government.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies—plural—but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms.” The letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “The involvement of Mr. Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump administration official, legal fixer and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election, raises yet further concerns about this arrangement,” the letter reads. “Mr. Epshteyn has been dogged by reports that he solicited illegal pay-to-play schemes in exchange for securing political appointments in the Trump administration.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “The time for short, nonresponsive replies—assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump administration—is over. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the Senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “We have written to your firm three times previously seeking documents and answers regarding this corrupt bargain, and Kirkland has provided no responsive information or records in response to any of these letters,” the latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “In light of Kirkland’s failure to meaningfully respond, and your firm’s potential violation of federal law, we seek additional information about your firm’s contacts with Mr. Boris Epshteyn and details of your work for the federal government.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies—plural—but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms.” The letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “The involvement of Mr. Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump administration official, legal fixer and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election, raises yet further concerns about this arrangement,” the letter reads. “Mr. Epshteyn has been dogged by reports that he solicited illegal pay-to-play schemes in exchange for securing political appointments in the Trump administration.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “The time for short, nonresponsive replies—assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump administration—is over. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Kirkland & Ellis has bolstered its European corporate practice with the hire of Sebastian Heim, who joins as partner across its Munich and London offices. Heim, a Milbank London partner, has advised on deals including Carlyle’s €7.7 billion ($8.9 billion) acquisition of BASF’s coating business and General Atlantic’s $5.7 billion public offering of SMG Swiss Marketing Group, at the time the largest European IPO of the year. Heim joined Milbank in 2011 as an associate, according to his LinkedIn. “Sebastian is one of the go-to private equity lawyers in Germany,” said Jon A. Ballis, chairman of Kirkland’s executive committee. Heim’s regularly advises clients on corporate law, M&A, and growth equity matters. “Sebastian is an extraordinary lawyer with a stellar reputation,” said Benjamin Leyendecker, a corporate partner in Kirkland’s Munich office. The move comes just 18 months after Kirkland opened its Frankfurt office in August 2024. The hub cooperates closely with Kirkland's Munich office, which has been described by Leyendecker as “key pillar of our strategy”. Heim is joining the Munich office, which has 17 partners listed on Kirkland’s website. Kirkland saw record lateral hires and partner promotions globally in 2025 alongside seven lateral hires in Germany since opening in Frankfurt. Kirkland’s German partners have also been in demand elsewhere, however, with former restructuring partner Leo Plank moving to Gibson Dunn in February. Milbank has been contacted for comment.

Mar 3

1 min