Partners React As A&O and O'Melveny Call Time on Talks
Many have cited the protracted length of the talks as a key reason for their demise.
September 02, 2019 at 12:09 PM
3 minute read
Current and former partners at Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy and U.S. outfit O'Melveny & Myers have reacted to the news that merger talks between the two are over, with some people citing their protracted length as impacting the end result.
This publication exclusively revealed the pair were in talks last April, but exploratory discussions had kicked off way back in 2017, according to a few people with knowledge of the matter.
Many in the industry had stressed the importance of moving relatively quickly while still trying to negotiate a complex piece of M&A. As time ticked on, some commentators said the likelihood of a deal diminished.
Following confirmation from both firms earlier today (September 2) that talks had ceased, one A&O partner told Legal Week that he believes the length of the discussion process was a problem.
He said: "Sometimes you can overcome other issues if everyone is enthusiastic and energised – but if things drag on then that removes that enthusiasm."
A former A&O partner agreed, saying: "Continued uncertainty is not helpful."
People at both firms stressed that the main reason for the breakdown in discussions was the current adverse macroeconomic conditions, including a reduction in U.S. interest rates and foreign exchange rate volatility, which would impact how a deal would be valued.
But one partner who used to work in one of the firm's London offices said that this could be a "smoke screen" for wider issues that could affect a U.K. firm's attractiveness.
He said: "There's been currency volatility for ages. I think everything is too volatile right now in Europe for a deal – there's Brexit, the possibility of a Corbyn government, etc. Why would a U.S. firm want to reduce its dollar cashflow?"
Commenting on the exchange rate volatility point, another partner who used to work at one of the firms said: "Surely you could bridge that if that was the issue." They added: "I thought it was a good deal."
Others stated that previously flagged problems contributed to the deal being killed.
A faction of corporate partners at A&O's London office were said to be unhappy about the proposed merger, fearing a dilution of brand and divestment of power from the city base.
One former A&O partner based in the city told Legal Week that uncertainty had remained an issue. But he added that the firm's heavyweight banking practice "was swinging behind" the proposed tie-up, after a sustained charm offensive by management team Wim Dejonghe and Andrew Ballheimer.
The current A&O partner said the pair, who are approaching the end of their terms for senior and managing partner respectively, "deserve credit" for overseeing the operation.
He said: "They deserve credit for trying to do something brave and getting it close. I'm sure they're very disappointed, but their job is to bring opportunities like that to the firm.
"It's not like we're in need of that particular merger."
One former colleague concurred. He said: "I imagine there will be some disappointed people in the U.S. – but ultimately it was not a deal that had to be done."
With reporting by Hannah Roberts and Paul Hodkinson.
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 AllSingapore Litigators Shift Competitive Landscape as Another Senior Duo Sets Up Own Shop
Squire Patton Boggs Hires 7-Lawyer Team to Beef Up ESG Practice in Brussels
2 minute readSkadden, White & Case Guide Citigroup Demerger in Mexico
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
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