Reports of London's Post-Brexit Breakdown Have Been Exaggerated
Any change to London's status as a financial center is likely to be gradual, not sudden, and few alternatives currently exist.
May 01, 2019 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
London's status as a financial center post-Brexit has understandably been a nagging concern for U.K. lawyers of late.
At the heart of the matter for law firms is whether they will be able to rely on the U.K. to remain Europe's center of activity for M&A, capital markets and litigation work despite it being outside of the European Union. Must firms move lawyers out of London and into EU locations to pick up work? Perhaps they will need to make cuts or merge in order to cope with a drop in revenue.
There are several reasons why these fears are overblown.
For a start, U.K. M&A activity has remained relatively steady throughout the Brexit process. Last year was the second-busiest for activity in the country since the financial crisis, and lawyers say Brexit has had no noticeable effect on activity levels.
The equity capital markets have not proved so resilient. U.K. IPO activity in the first part of 2019 was the worst since the financial crisis, as uncertainty caused clients to sit on their hands. But several lawyers in the practice area expect this to be a short-lived phenomenon, not least because companies remain keen on the U.K. and there are not many other thriving capital markets in the rest of Europe.
Although many predict London will suffer from Brexit, many feel that the lack of any single market rival to take its place as a financial center offers the city a degree of safety for the time being. Paris, Milan, Madrid, Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt and Dublin have all been touted as possibilities to take some of London's market share, but none has emerged as a serious contender so far.
Only Frankfurt and Dublin can claim to have enjoyed any serious exodus from London's financial services industry since the Brexit referendum, and even then the numbers involved have been relatively small. Frankfurt is a larger financial center, but language and regulatory barriers make it less attractive than Dublin for a lot of U.K.-based institutions. While the likes of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Morgan Stanley have built up their operations in the Irish capital, local lawyers say the recent banker influx consists mostly of back-office staff. The city remains relatively small—with hardly any high-rise buildings—making the prospect of several huge financial institutions moving in hard to imagine.
Neither is there expected to be a decline in U.K. disputes work. Local litigators point to the fact that the U.K.'s legal system remains well respected across the world, meaning London's position as a popular location for disputes is unlikely to suffer. Attempts have been made by cities such as Amsterdam and Paris to set up English-language courts and take work away from the U.K., but few London litigators believe they will gain much traction.
And perhaps most important of all, the U.K. is viewed as a good place to do business, even in spite of Brexit. In the latest Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum, the U.K. ranked eighth, slightly lower than the year prior but still comfortably ahead of the likes of France, Australia, Canada and China. The U.K. is regarded as being among the best in the world for skilled employees, macroeconomic stability, hiring and firing practices, low corruption levels and top universities and business schools.
This is not to say that the U.K. will be just fine post-Brexit, of course. A weakening of ties to its closest and largest trading partner will almost certainly do some economic damage.
But a lack of alternative locations, a strong educational establishment and a well-regarded judiciary mean any change to London's status is likely to be gradual rather than sudden. And it might not come at all.
Email: [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250