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
© 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 AllHogan Lovells Johannesburg MP Joins ALN; Firm Relocates Partner to D.C. After Closure
3 minute readArizona Board Approves KPMG's Bid To Deliver Legal Services
Simmons Partner Joins French IP Boutique to Lead New Amsterdam Outpost
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts Grapple With The Corporate Transparency Act
- 2FTC Chair Lina Khan Sues John Deere Over 'Right to Repair,' Infuriates Successor
- 3‘Facebook’s Descent Into Toxic Masculinity’ Prompts Stanford Professor to Drop Meta as Client
- 4Pa. Superior Court: Sorority's Interview Notes Not Shielded From Discovery in Lawsuit Over Student's Death
- 5Kraken’s Chief Legal Officer Exits, Eyes Role in Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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