A money dance and stone throwing: City partners reveal the key challenges of working on the BT-EE merger
External advisers weigh in on the toughest aspects of getting through one of the largest European telecoms deals in recent years
February 26, 2016 at 06:05 PM
5 minute read
BT's takeover of EE began with a money dance.
The custom dates back to early 20th century Poland, when male wedding guests paid to dance briefly with the bride.
In 2014, a modern take on the tradition surfaced in the European telecoms sector. At this time, the UK's largest mobile operator EE and its rival O2, owned by Spain's Telefonica, were both trying to woo BT.
"Both sets of owners had to more or less dance around the potential bride until she came up with an offer," recalls Clifford Chance corporate partner Joachim Fleury, who advised Deutsche Telekom on the deal, which co-owns EE with Orange. "It was an unusual process with a reverse auction. In a normal auction, which the seller organises, everyone tries to bid the highest. Instead there was pressure on the price."
Following intense negotiations, BT selected EE as its merger partner in December that year and the key documents were signed in February 2015.
"It was a turnaround of less than two months for one of the largest telecoms deals in Europe in recent years," comments Norton Rose Fulbright partner Oliver Stacey, who advised Orange. "Competition in the European telecoms market is fierce and deals need to be concluded swiftly for both buyers and sellers."
Fleury adds:
"I remember taking conference calls on Christmas Day and on the weekend between Christmas and New Year to get all the due diligence done. It was such a big deal so there was a lot of pressure on it."
By sector, telecoms was the most active in 2015 with three deals in the European top 10. While BT-EE was the largest, other sizeable transactions completed last year include Nokia on its €14.7bn (£11.6bn) takeover of French rival Alcatel-Lucent.
The BT-EE merger legal team:
Firm/company | Total team size | Competition lawyers |
BT | 20-25 | Bruce Breckenridge, Stephen Hurley, Julia Jackson, Dina Jubrail |
EE | ? | Kristina Barbov, Joe Ward |
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | 6 | Head of competition Rod Carlton (check who else) |
Clifford Chance | 10 | London partner Jenine Hulsman and Duesseldorf partner Joachim Schütze |
Norton Rose Fulbright | 16 | London partner Mark Simpson |
Stone throwing
Although the BT-EE deal was ultimately cleared unconditionally in January this year, it faced multiple objections.
And the UK's largest fixed-line business remains under pressure as Ofcom has said it must open up its cable network to competitors in order to reduce its dominance in the market. The regulator has not yet demanded a complete break-up of BT, but said this was still an option.
During the course of a year-long probe, from the initial merger submission to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in May leading up to the competition watchdog releasing its provisional findings in October, BT faced complaints from multiple rivals.
Key complainants included Vodaphone, Virgin, Talk Talk, O2 and Sky. They feared that that the combined group would have too much power to undercut the prices of their own services.
"Their number, determination and sophistication were a real challenge for BT. Many third parties had clearly instructed lawyers and economists to help them throw stones at the merger," comments Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer competition head Rod Carlton.
BT brought in its key corporate adviser Freshfields to assist its in-house legal team on the deal. The magic circle firm put forward Carlton alongside corporate partners Natasha Good and Ben Spiers and three associates. It also employed economists from UK consulting company CompassLexecon.
Carlton worked primarily with BT's head of competition Bruce Breckenridge and three other full-time BT lawyers on the deal.
"On the competition side, we worked to our respective strengths, with BT lawyers having a deep understanding of BT and the markets in which it operates, and the regulatory environment, and Freshfields having extensive experience and expertise in engaging the CMA on seeking clearance on significant transactions," says Breckenridge.
Despite the efforts of the complainants, the deal process was eased by the fact that BT and EE focus on two different sides of the market (fixed line and mobile). And ultimately, none of the objectors sought to appeal the CMA's clearance decision.
In comparison, O2 is currently embroiled in a more controversial battle to merge with UK rival and fellow mobile network Three owned by Hong Kong investment company Hutchison Whampoa.
UK regulator Ofcom is pressing Brussels to block the proposed £10.3bn merger of announced last year on the back of fears that UK consumers' mobile phone bills will rise sharply.
With its rivals pushing to follow a similar path, there's no doubt that BT-EE has dramatically shaken up the UK telecoms market.
As Carlton concludes:
"This was undoubtedly a challenging case: a pioneering transaction bringing together the UK's biggest fixed network and biggest mobile network in an industry facing structural, technical and commercial change."
|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 AllLatham, Jones Day and Wachtell Lead on Anglo American's $3.8B Coal Business Sale
2 minute readBig Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic about M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readThe Law Firms Generating 8-Figure Fees on the Year's Big Ticket UK Deals
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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