DWF dismisses debt concerns amid claims of bank influence over IPO plans
Firm denies market suggestions that potential listing is linked to debt levels
July 02, 2018 at 10:09 AM
4 minute read
DWF has moved to dismiss suggestions that its decision to consider a public listing has been influenced by the firm's debt levels.
The firm, which is currently mulling an initial public offering (IPO) that could take place in the early part of next year, insists that its plan to take on external capital relates to a desire for further investment in the business and to better incentivise staff.
DWF set out its stance in response to multiple sources telling Legal Week that the firm's pursuit of external capital relates in part to its bank loans.
According to its most recently filed LLP accounts, the firm's bank loans stood at £40.3m for the 2016-17 financial year – double the equivalent figure of £20.3m in 2013-14 and equating to just over 20% of the firm's 2016-17 revenue of £199.3m, one of the highest proportions in the UK top 50.
Virtually all of this debt – £39.9m – was due for refinancing by July this year, with the firm agreeing larger loan facilities with its lenders running through to 2021 after the accounts were filed. Legal Week understands that while the firm successfully renegotiated its lending facilities in January and February this year, two of its lenders – Barclays and Santander – were not included in the new arrangement.
One source with knowledge of the matter said the firm had been discussing a float as "a way to keep its lending banks on side", while a former partner said it amounted to an attempt to "solve the firm's debt problem". Multiple sources suggested that concerns about DWF's debt had "influenced the timing, if not the desire" of the firm considering going public.
However, in response to a request for comment by Legal Week, a spokesperson for DWF said that suggestions it is considering a listing due to its debt levels are "fundamentally incorrect and completely misguided".
The DWF spokesperson added: "We have been considering a number of strategic options for our business, including the possibility of an IPO on the London Stock Exchange. To be completely clear, we are certainly not considering an IPO for any reason connected to the firm's debt."
The spokesperson added: "The firm recently refinanced through to 2021, but this reflects the confidence of its banking partners rather than any concern over debt levels. We refinanced and have unsecured facilities. If a bank has any concerns regarding our solvency or performance at refinance they would take security – they didn't because they have no such concerns."
DWF's interest in seeking outside investment comes after equity partners were asked to inject funds into the business in September and October 2017 in a "capital reorganisation" aimed at "bringing the firm's capital levels up to date" following rapid revenue growth, according to former partners.
While equity partners agreed to pay in additional capital for the first time in seven years – with the sum paid in understood to equate to about 10% of their annual profit share – plans to raise additional funds from the firm's fixed-share partner rank were abandoned when the firm opted to look at an IPO. Former partners had suggested there was "almost a revolution" in the fixed share rank after an initial request, though the firm denies a serious dispute.
The potential IPO, which is likely to be the largest UK law firm float to date, is one of "a number of strategic options" now being considered, according to the firm.
In a statement, DWF said: "If we were to proceed with an IPO, we believe that it would enable us to achieve our strategic objectives more quickly, while also enhancing our ability to attract and retain the best talent and to incentivise our people by aligning them through offering ownership within the business."
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 AllCMS Targets Mauritian Investment Market with Local Boutique Partnership
3 minute readCharles Russell Speechlys Opens in Milan to Focus on Ultra-High Net Worth Clients
Trending 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