Hogan Lovells Australia: to be or not to be?
In the 12-month period from spring 2012, a market-moving Australian merger or tie UP was the must-have accessory for A major international firm. From Ashurst and Herbert Smith to Linklaters and King & Wood, everyone wanted a piece of Australia's red hot, cross-border energy market.
August 06, 2014 at 02:20 AM
4 minute read
In the 12-month period from spring 2012, a market-moving Australian merger or tie-up was the must-have accessory for a major international firm. From Ashurst and Herbert Smith to Linklaters and King & Wood, everyone wanted a piece of Australia's red hot, cross-border energy market.
Among those expected to follow their rivals down under was Hogan Lovells, an outfit with a significant US, European and Asia presence, not to mention a focus on energy, projects and infrastructure work.
In 2012, the firm even told Legal Week it had had informal meetings with a number of top Australian firms and was weighing up its options.
But two years later, and Hogan Lovells is still yet to make its move into the country, despite ever-present rumours of talks and visits from the firm's top brass. The question now, given the shift in the Australian economy and an ailing number of energy and resources deals, is whether the firm will ever go-ahead with its Australian venture, and if so, how?
Patrick Sherrington, the current head of Asia-Pacific, says nothing imminent is planned but that the firm has definitely not ruled Australia out.
"My personal view is that Australia is an important jurisdiction, it has high quality lawyers and if I was a businessman, which I'm not, I might be relatively bullish about Australia long term," he says. "But the Australian legal market is very well serviced."
Certainly the market still poses a lot of risks and challenges for management, as evidenced by some of the major mergers that have gone before.
"I think they have looked at the success of the [big mergers] and the feedback about internal unhappiness and it has caused them to think again about whether it is the right means to enter the market," says one Sydney-based lawyer with links to Hogan Lovells. "It raises the stakes a bit for management when partners come forward with proposals, and it has made them a bit more cautious."
The lawyer also raises the question of who the firm could partner with. While in the past it has been linked with the likes of Clayton Utz and Corrs, these firms seem keen to remain independent.
"Some of the Australian firms think their independence is important," continues the Sydney-based source. "They think in the next five years there will be room for at least one or two successful independent firms. There's evidence of that in Europe."
Perhaps more likely candidates are Minter Ellison or Gilbert + Tobin, both of which seem to have more of an international outlook.
However, another partner close to Hogan Lovells says that even with these firms a big merger is highly unlikely. This is partly due to the economic downturn in the country and partly due to the costs involved in taking on north of 150 brand new partners as well as some domestic practices which may not be relevant to a global firm.
"Logically they should be targeting smaller firms with a reputation in their niche practices such as energy and resources, infrastructure, projects, banking and finance and cross border M&A," he explains. "It doesn't make sense to take on a [large] partnership."
Sherrington himself is reluctant to take any option off the table, but makes clear that a mega merger is less likely in view of recent market developments. This would appear to leave the more manageable options of either combining with smaller firms or cherry picking lawyers.
"The last thing they would want to do is go with someone who is not top tier," says a senior partner at a big six law firm based in Sydney. He says potential options could include firms such as Henry Davis York or Johnson Winter & Slattery.
Thus it seems most important will be to choose a firm or group with a strong market reputation which does a lot of cross border work, and potentially one with fewer partners that can more easily slide into the global network. In truth, many of these tie ups might be more accurately described as takeovers, rather than mergers.
However, the question remains: Why has it taken so long for a firm that looks like such a good fit for Australia, to follow its peers onto the continent?
The Sydney partner sums up: "I think they [Hogan Lovells] saw it as something which was easy to do but then they realised it wasn't that easy. You have the challenge of dealing with the different cultures but also the managing partners."
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 AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
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