Herbert Smith pulls out of alliance after Gleiss and Stibbe reject merger
Herbert Smith is formally withdrawing from its alliance with European partners Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe in the wake of its failed merger bid with the two firms. Herbert Smith decided to pull out of the alliance yesterday (23 November) at a meeting of its limited liability partnership council (LLPC).
November 24, 2011 at 05:38 AM
4 minute read
Herbert Smith is formally withdrawing from its alliance with European partners Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe in the wake of its failed merger bid with the two firms.
Herbert Smith decided to pull out of the alliance yesterday (23 November) at a meeting of its limited liability partnership council (LLPC).
The move comes less than a week after partners at Germany's Gleiss and Benelux firm Stibbe decided against pursuing a merger with Herber Smith at meetings last weekend (19-20 November).
It is understood there is likely to be a wind-down period of around a year, according to the terms of the alliance, which was initially agreed with Gleiss in 2000 and Stibbe in 2002.
Herbert Smith put proposals for a full three-way merger with financial integration to Gleiss and Stibbe around six weeks ago following a review of its international strategy launched earlier this year, dubbed Project Blue Sky.
In an internal announcement issued earlier this morning the firm said that it had been prepared for its alliance partners to reject the proposals and said that it would now push ahead with its own international plans – including developing some form of presence in Germany.
Other priorities include New York, where Herbert Smith's litigators have been pressing for a formal presence. It is understood the launch of a New York office was particularly unpopular with Gleiss, with the German partners concerned about the loss of referrals from US law firms. Stibbe already has a presence in New York offering Dutch law advice.
In its internal announcement Herbert Smith said: "We put in place a structured process to implement the [international] plan, and one of the first actions was to talk to our alliance colleagues at Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe to test whether they would wish to merge with Herbert Smith. From the outset we were prepared for either outcome. But we have built some special and close relationships over our 10 years together and wanted to give them the opportunity to join with us. We felt this was important before pursuing our own plans.
"The LLPC met yesterday in the wake of the decisions made by Gleiss and Stibbe, and concluded that we should inform our alliance partners that we will give notice to leave the alliance. We can now press on with developing our international offering, including our approach to an integrated capability in Germany.
"Our decision to draw to a close the alliance does not mean that we will cease working with them. We will continue to have good relationships with both firms and to work together to look after the clients we share."
Stibbe managing partner Heleen Kersten said: "The termination of the alliance is not unexpected in light of the recent developments regarding a merger. It won't change that much for us because it was never an exclusive arrangement, and we have always found it important to work with all leading law firms, which we will continue to do.
She added: "The most important thing for us to do now is for all three firms to sit down and discuss the future. We will of course remain friends and I expect the relationship to continue in some form or another, but just not in the same formal way that it has been."
Commenting on the failure of the merger talks a partner at one magic circle firm in Germany said:"I don't see it as particularly surprising that Gleiss and Stibbe have opted not to go for further integration. If you have cooperated in this form for so long it is probably quite difficult to take that step. As such, it may have been better to try to do it sooner."
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 AllKim & Chang, Freshfields, A&O Shearman Take Top Spots for Highest Collective Deal Value as APAC M&A Grew By Just 1% in 2024
Another Partner Exits Deloitte Legal—Former M&A Head Joins UK Top 50 Law Firm
KPMG Law US Targets Alternative Business Licence, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 12 Judges: Meet the New Chief Justice and the GC Who Just Rose to the Bench
- 2Holland & Knight Matches Milbank Bonuses for Some Associates
- 3Akin Promotes Record Number of Lawyers to Partner
- 4Ogletree Deakins Names 5 New Office Managing Shareholders
- 5Six Judges Take Up New Leadership Roles in NYC Courts
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