Back to news
finance

Asset Management Founder Ousted Amidst Remote Work Disagreement

A co-founder of a prominent asset management firm claims he was unfairly removed from his position following a dispute over return-to-office policies. He suggests his partners leveraged the new regulations as a pretext for his dismissal from the company he helped establish.

7/27/2026, 7:46:03 AM

A dispute concerning workplace attendance policies has led to the departure of a co-founder from the asset management firm, CrossPoint Venture Partners. Michael Kim, who was instrumental in establishing the company, maintains that his partners exploited the firm's newly implemented in-office requirements as a means to remove him. According to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Kim states that he was terminated in September 2022 after his colleagues accused him of neglecting the company's mandate for employees to work from the office three days per week. This policy, ironically, was one that he himself had endorsed. Mr. Kim believes his dismissal was unjust and unrelated to his fulfillment of his responsibilities within the company. Mr. Kim initiated the lawsuit in a California court several months after his termination. He alleges that his partners, David Kim and Adam Stavisky, were looking for an opportunity to push him out of the management committee. His legal filing asserts that they orchestrated his removal under the guise of an office attendance violation. The genesis of CrossPoint Venture Partners dates back to 2018 when Michael Kim, formerly affiliated with Silver Lake, collaborated with David Kim, previously with Apollo Global Management, and Adam Stavisky, who had a background at Goldman Sachs. The firm was established to manage assets for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, commonly known as CalPERS, focusing on investments in private equity funds. Mr. Kim's lawsuit seeks substantial damages, including $50 million for breach of contract and an additional $100 million for punitive damages, citing unlawful termination. He asserts that his 25% ownership stake in the firm was also unjustly divested following his removal. The legal proceedings are expected to shed further light on the circumstances surrounding his departure and the motivations of his former partners.

Share