Kate Lowry Kate Lowry

News updates

For the last several weeks, Insight has been playing tug of war trying to force the case into federal court, which would remove unanimous jury requirements. This is a way to delay justice and prevent the case from moving into the discovery phase, which they likely want to avoid because it will force real accountability for their actions.

What has been most interesting to Kate has been their opposition brief documents, in which we’re seeing a classic “if you don’t have the law, pound the facts. If you don’t have the facts, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.” Their filings are extreme version of pounding the table. From where she’s sitting, it’s extremely clear that they’re upset their corporate veil is being pierced, and terrified that the lawsuit will touch LP funds. 

They should be - because the documents show that they have significant Abu Dhabi ownership, and also Cayman-based tax strategies. In their responses they tried to claim that there are almost no partners paid in equity at Insight, when virtually all MDs tend to be paid in majority carried interest according to industry reports, and that the 50+ entities under their corporate umbrella have no common management. In reality, their entities are like different rooms in the same house, with doors stage gating capital between them.

In other news, Kate’s first in depth interview about the lawsuit is out, available here.

The Drawdown also recently interviewed her about the state of discrimination in PE.

Read More
Kate Lowry Kate Lowry

Lowry v. Insight Partners

The lawsuit

This suit alleges a pattern of systemic abuse, threats, discrimination and retaliation at Insight Partners. It details years of fear-based leadership used to intimidate, silence and terminate Kate after she reported her concerns. As the complaint alleges, Kate believes this reflects a pattern of behavior that made it virtually impossible for any non-male, non-straight or disabled employee to succeed. 

Helpful links

The case: An overview

This case is about abuse of power: whether institutions will continue to use power to dominate and whether those who abuse their power can be held accountable. 

The alleged behavior is not isolated; it’s a pattern. 

As the complaint alleges, venture firms, like Insight, operate with virtually no public scrutiny. This case opens a rare window into how systemic misconduct can persist unchecked inside powerful institutions like Insight. This case is about how powerful people in tech treat those they perceive as vulnerable; and how those dynamics shape which founders, products and ideas get funded. 

The case addresses the real-world harm of “fear-based leadership.”
Fear-driven environments are destructive, and abusive leadership actively stops innovation, suppresses dissent and harms the people building the future. 

The complaint centers on abuse based on protected characteristics.
It alleges that leadership: 

  • Demeaned non-male, disabled and LGBTQ+ employees 

  • Designed policies or practices to compensate disabled employees less because they are "worth less" 

  • Threatened Kate’s compensation 

  • Systematically prevented non-male employees from being promoted, leading to a 90% male investment committee 

  • Cut compensation by millions after Kate raised concerns 

  • Terminated me after Kate retained counsel 

The case raises questions about power and accountability 

Kate believes that powerful leaders increasingly act like they are above the law. She aims to hold them accountable by pushing their behavior into the public sphere. The lawsuit has implications for: 

  • The broader public concerned with accountability inside powerful systems 

  • Founders seeking fair treatment 

  • Underrepresented leaders, employees, and investors 

  • LP evaluating risk and governance 

  • Workers navigating hostile environments

Read More