Subject: Re: Response to Jonathan
From: "Devon Archer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 22:43:25 +0400

Yes. Unless you and me are just sitting on an IC of 2b.  Then it's fine.  But we can't have any raise requirements.

Devon Archer
646 436 3745

On Mar 9, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Hunter Biden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 15% is a non-starter- right?
> 
> RHB
> 202.333.1880
> 
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Devon Archer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks.  He's doing better than me.  He's still sleeping and I've been up since 3am. He's a pro!
>> 
>> Devon Archer
>> 646 436 3745
>> 
>> On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:27 AM, James Bulger <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Devon
>>> No problem you give the draft a go and we will have the call on Tuesday am EST.  lets shoot for sending the reply back to Jonathan on Tuesday after our call.
>>> Hope you are haveing a good trip Devon! Jet lag must be confusing as hell on Luke
>>> Thanks
>>> Jimmy
>>> 
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2013, Devon Archer wrote:
>>>> Jimmy,
>>>> Thanks kindly for moving this forward. This is a good draft with the right tone.   Let me take a crack at it and I'll get back to you in the next 24 hours.  I'll be on a flight back to nyc Monday am and headed straight into dinner that evening.  Let's plan for Tuesday am for the call.
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Devon Archer
>>>> 646 436 3745
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 9:26 PM, James Bulger <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Devon and Hunter:
>>>> >
>>>> > Attached is my first crack at a response for Devon to send to Jonathan. It is inspired by the comment that Heinz made to Devon which is "we don't have anything to prove, if anything the Chinese should prove why they are worthy of being partners with us!"
>>>> >
>>>> > I have to admit when I first saw that he was proposing 10-15% I was not thrilled. I thought we were going to major players in getting this fund off the ground and as such we deserved a much higher cut than 10-15%. On the other hand, if all Jonathan needs from us is to sit on the investment committee then it might not be a bad deal. The point is that we need to figure out what our role and that will determine what size a cut is fair.
>>>> >
>>>> > For example, if we were to be very active partners in this fund I think I would RST to have a share in the 30-40% range. If our involvement is simply to sit on the sidelines and be the "white face" then I'm personally close to 15%. What I am not willing to do is to make this RST's new full-time job for 15%.
>>>> >
>>>> > My gut tells me that Jonathan is going to need our help in an active way rather than a passive way. Considering what Jonathan is trying to pull off that tends to be how these things work. So let's start to get to the bottom of that with Jonathan.
>>>> >
>>>> > Please review this response and let's have a call about it on Monday morning. I don't want to choke the baby in the crib with an overly negative reaction to Jonathan's proposal but we need to figure out some things before we move forward.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> > Jimmy
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > James J. Bulger
>>>> > Chairman
>>>> > Thornton Group LLC
>>>> > 14 Beacon Street, Suite 804A
>>>> > Boston, MA 02108
>>>> > Office tel: 617.248.9440
>>>> > <Respone to J 3-8-13.docx>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> James J. Bulger
>>> Chairman
>>> Thornton Group LLC
>>> 14 Beacon Street, Suite 804A
>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>> Office tel: 617.248.944