'Losing the Berwin brand doesn't make sense' - partners size up BCLP moniker for BLP-Bryan Cave
Partners debate mooted merger moniker as BLP confirms domain name registrations
December 15, 2017 at 08:46 AM
3 minute read
The proposed merged name of BCLP for the Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) and Bryan Cave tie-up has raised some eyebrows from partners close to both firms.
BCLP has been discussed as a possible option for the name of the combined firm, should their merger talks come to fruition, with a number of web domains registered in advance of a deal being completed.
Registered website addresses include bclplaw.com, which was reserved on 12 October, days before the firms officially confirmed they were in merger talks, while trustbclplaw.com and bryancaveblp.com and have also been registered.
A BLP spokesperson confirmed that various website domains had been registered by the firm, but that it is "too early" to confirm the name publicly.
Former partners have highlighted the loss of the Berwin brand if BCLP is selected, a name which would "bury the identity of the two firms", according to one. "Losing Berwin will mean that one of the biggest names in the London legal market – the only name attached at one point to two City firms – disappears," he said. "That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
BLP was formed in 2001 by the merger of Berwin Leighton and Paisner & Co, and another ex-partner said that in the years after the deal, the firm urged partners to use the name Berwin Leighton Paisner in full. "The firm did not want to be known then by its initials," he said. "Management wanted to maintain the legacies of the two firms, so it would be quite ironic if they go with BCLP."
One source close to the firm said: "BLP must be keen to get the merger done and are going along with it. BCLP would mean they are losing the Berwin brand, which doesn't really make sense."
Another ex-BLP partner added: "It would surprise me a little if the Berwin was dropped completely, but it represents a compromise. In mergers there is a lot of argy-bargy about which name goes first. US firms are good at long names, but in the UK you have to drop one of them, so it makes sense."
However, another ex-partner suggested that the name was an effective "appeasement of both sides", due to it retaining all of the letters of both firm's names. They said: "Based on the ambiguity around the B, it makes it a little less clear whether Bryan Cave have dropped the Bryan or BLP have dropped the Berwin, so both brands are represented."
It had been thought that the two firms were intending to complete their merger as soon as 1 January next year, with partners telling Legal Week that they were expecting to vote on the deal before Christmas. However, with just over two weeks of the year remaining, an official launch date has not yet been announced by the firms.
Deloitte is advising on the tie-up, and has been working on the details of the combined firm's tax structure for inclusion in the merger proposal documents. It is understood that the firms are aiming for close financial integration, a goal that presents significant challenges due to the different tax and accounting systems used by UK and US law firms.
The two firms officially confirmed their merger talks in October. The proposed tie-up could create a 1,500-lawyer transatlantic law firm with combined revenues of about £730m.
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 AllWhat About the Old Partners Who Have No Interest in AI?
Netflix Offices Raided by Authorities in Paris and Amsterdam
The EU Top 30, 2024: Ranking the Largest Law Firms in the European Union by Headcount
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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