'People get cold feet' – the latest on A&O and O'Melveny's merger talks
Talks have been going on for longer than the market thought, but doubts are starting to creep in about a successful tie-up
January 28, 2019 at 04:40 AM
5 minute read
A possible transatlantic merger between Allen & Overy and O'Melveny & Myers has been a frenetic market talking point since last April, when Legal Week revealed the pair were in talks.
But for the firms themselves, the discussions could hardly be described as fast and furious. Initial talks began back in 2016, according to one person with knowledge of the situation. A&O senior partner Wim Dejonghe and managing partner Andrew Ballheimer had been elected that spring, with their main aim upon winning the roles being to expand the firm's presence in the US.
It means senior figures at the firms are approaching their third year of considering the idea, which is causing some onlookers to question whether it is ever likely to happen at all.
One lawyer familiar with the matter said partners from both firms met in New York late last year to discuss the integration of the firms.
Efforts to encourage partners of all seniorities to get to know one another have also continued, with meetings between A&O and O'Melveny partners taking place outside the US earlier this month, according to one partner.
But people at both firms conceded talks are taking longer than previously expected. Two people said partners had expected to receive information memorandums on a potential deal by the end of last year, but that has not yet happened.
The pace of talks has slowed particularly in the past six weeks, according to former and current partners of both firms. The main reason given for this by people close to the situation is that as US firm O'Melveny approaches its financial year end on 31 January, its priority is getting its own house in order.
One person speculated that it made sense to have the vote following a final distribution of the firms' individual profits in 2018. For O'Melveny, this will happen in March.
Both firms have now agreed within themselves what percentages would be required to vote a merger through, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. A&O would need about 70% of its partnership to vote in favour, while O'Melveny is understood to require something more like a simple majority.
It remains unclear what name would be put before the partnerships. The firms declined to comment when the domain name allenomelveny.com was registered last year.
The profitability of both firms is fairly well matched, with 2017-18 profit per equity partner rising to £1.64m ($2.15m) at A&O and $2m (£1.5m) at O'Melveny. But other issues are likely to require careful handling.
One thing that could prove daunting to O'Melveny is the sheer scale of A&O, and whether the merger is realistically one of equals. A&O's revenues, equity partnership, total headcount and number of offices are all about three times the size of O'Melveny's.
A financially integrated firm would have to work out how it was prepared to bill its clients, as US firms traditionally call for payments far quicker than their UK counterparts.
And although the two firms have complementary practice areas, with Allen & Overy's banking focus and O'Melveny's west coast litigation expertise, the merger does not necessarily give the firms a much stronger presence in the world's biggest legal centre – New York.
People at both firms stressed that neither side is adhering to a strict timetable, and that discussions like this require proper due diligence and rigorous thought.
The longer it drags on, the less likely it is to happen
Yet the slow pace of the discussions suggests such issues may be tricky to resolve, according to one insider. And some have gone so far as to question whether talks could be derailed entirely.
One former A&O London partner said: "The longer it drags on, the less likely it is to happen – people get cold feet."
It is hard to find examples of successful law firm unions taking so long to arrange. Berwin Leighton Paisner announced to its partners that it was in talks with Bryan Cave in October 2017. Just four months later, the vote was sealed.
Although Eversheds' discussions with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan only emerged when they were in their latter stages in November 2016, an agreement was reached less than four weeks later.
Compared to those firms, A&O and O'Melveny are moving at a positively glacial pace.
An ex-O'Melveny partner also questioned what the impact would be on a partnership that had failed to see through a merger.
He said: "If you dabble in this type of conversation and then don't conclude it, you provide an opening to your competitors. They can start whispering to your partners: 'Are you really comfortable there after this?'"
Additional reporting by Christine Simmons
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 AllCharles Russell Speechlys Gains Traction in Latin America
Trump and China: Lawyers Warn of Risk to the Practice of Law
Big Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic about M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Trending Stories
- 1The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
- 2Bosworth Claims It Was Kline & Specter, Not Him, That Breached Settlement Terms
- 3K&L Gates Faces Malpractice Suit: 'An Experienced Labor Attorney Would Know'
- 4Announcing Women Attorneys of the Year 2024
- 5Judge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
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