Stibbe and Gleiss end Herbert Smith merger plans with 'no' vote
Herbert Smith has suffered a huge strategic setback, with partners at European alliance partners Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe voting against a proposed merger between the three firms. The top 10 City firm's plans for a three-way merger came to an end over the weekend (19-20 November) when partners at Gleiss and Stibbe voted against continuing discussions.
November 22, 2011 at 06:06 AM
3 minute read
Herbert Smith has suffered a huge strategic setback, with partners at European alliance partners Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe voting against a proposed merger between the three firms.
The top 10 City firm's plans for a three-way merger came to an end over the weekend (19-20 November) when partners at Gleiss and Stibbe voted against continuing discussions.
It is unclear what will happen to the longstanding alliance between the UK, German and Benelux firm as a result of the decision.
Herbert Smith's proposal for a merger between the alliance firms was made as part of an ongoing strategic review at the firm launched earlier this year known as Project Blue Sky.
Herbert Smith had initially given Gleiss and Stibbe until the end of this month to make a decision about whether or not to enter into merger talks, however they are understood to have reached a decision quicker than expected. As previously reported by Legal Week any potential merger could have been structured as a Swiss verein allowing separate profit pools to be retained.
The refusal from Gleiss and Stibbe will be regarded as a significant setback for Herbert Smith, which has received criticism from rivals and ex-partners for not internationalising fast enough and for a lack of clear strategic direction.
Herbert Smith said in a statement: "Following our strategic review, Herbert Smith is committed to developing an integrated platform across our network and the markets in which we operate. As a result, we are considering a number of options across a range of territories.
"In this context we recently proposed to alliance partners Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe that the three firms enter into merger discussions. Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe have just confirmed they do not wish to pursue this.
"We will be considering the implications of their decisions and will let you know of any further developments regarding the alliance. In the meantime it is very much 'business as usual', with the alliance firms continuing to focus on the needs of clients who we jointly advise."
According to press reports in Germany, more than 75% of the Gleiss partnership voted against the merger. Herbert Smith and Gleiss formed their alliance in 2000, with Stibbe joining in 2002.
- Click here for Legal Week's recent coverage of Herbert Smith's desired merger with Gleiss and Stibbe
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
© 2025 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 All
Milbank, Wachtell, Ropes and Pittsburgh Duo Aim to Save Nippon Steel's US Steel Merger
Kirkland, Macfarlanes Act as Evelyn Partners Offloads £700M Professional Services Arm
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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
