'It's us who should feel betrayed' – Ince Gordon Dadds responds to pre-pack fallout
CEO of newly-merged firm says controversial pre-pack was not part of the original plan but that firm has secured 'exactly what it wanted' from the deal
February 06, 2019 at 07:07 AM
4 minute read
Ince Gordon Dadds has hit back at criticism of the handling of its acquisition of Ince & Co in a pre-pack administration, saying it is pleased with the outcome.
Former Ince partners have been left facing bills of up to £500,000 if, as they suspect, the pre-pack nature of the acquisition means they will not be repaid capital or money stashed away by the firm for tax purposes. Some said they felt "betrayed" by their former colleagues who signed up for such a deal.
But Ince Gordon Dadds partner Stephen Jarvis, who was also formerly at Ince, said: "How do they think we feel? We feel betrayed by them. They went to rival firms. These people left a 150-year-old firm."
"What we've got is exactly what we wanted to get with the deal"
When asked about the execution of the acquisition, Ince Gordon Dadds CEO Adrian Biles added that he was pleased with how it concluded. He said: "What we've got is exactly what we wanted to get with the deal. We've ended up exactly where we wanted to be."
Biles was also bullish on the predicament faced by former partners. He said: "The reality is that this is debt that is owed by the partners. I would suggest wait and see." When asked where the capital could possibly come from, Biles said there were numerous possibilities, one being "recoveries against others, a third party for instance", although he could not specify who.
"The pre-pack wasn't part of the original idea"
Though Gordon Dadds' takeover of Daveport Lyons in 2014 was also conducted by way of a pre-pack sale, Biles insists the most recent acquisition was unexpected, and that a pre-pack was only agreed last minute.
"The pre-pack wasn't part of the original idea," said Biles. "But the fact is it became apparent it was necessary. Yes, Davenport Lyons was a pre-pack, but it was a different sort of deal."
Biles said the firm consulted a "pre-pack pool", which is a governing body that is sponsored by industry bodies including the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that the pool deemed their pre-pack agreement to be "fair and reasonable".
The takeover has resulted in a redundancy process at the firm and Biles added that he expects to see further job losses as integration takes place.
The administration process has also resulted in a dispute with Ince & Co's landlords and confusion about the future of Ince's international offices, which were not included in the deal.
Biles said the firm had now reached an agreement with the landlords but did not give further information.
"The profession of law is changing remarkably quickly and you need to be big enough to weather the storm"
The firm is in ongoing discussions with all of Ince & Co's international offices, including those in France and Monaco, which had previously been excluded from the combination.
Biles said: "We're building a relationships with people in those offices and are dealing with a negotiation committee. We want to make it clear to France and Monaco what the deal means to them, which was probably not made clear before. It's an emotional rather than strategic problem."
If the talks are successful, the international offices would retain Ince & Co branding, with only the firm's London, Shanghai and Beijing offices to be called Ince Gordon Dadds, he said.
Biles added: "The partners in all of the international offices are in process of having their capital repaid. There is a network services agreement in place, and the object of the exercise is to conclude the acquisition.
"The only obstacle is to make sure regulatory arrangements are satisfactory in each jurisdiction. We're confident we'll be able to do this."
Commenting on the firm's aggressive growth strategy, Biles said: "The profession of law is changing remarkably quickly and you need to be big enough to weather the storm, and have enough cash to do so. You're in a much better place to answer these questions with £100m rather than a £1m income.
"If you've got £1m, you can't do anything but follow the market, but with £100m you can be on the front foot and can work out what clients need from a position of financial security. That's why we want to be bigger."
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 AllDentons Australian Chair Doug Stipanicev Back At Work After Investigation
4 minute readA&O Shearman Luminary, Former US Co-Chair, to Leave Partnership
Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect in the Coming Week
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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