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
© 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 AllPogust Goodhead Set to Axe Roles as Accounts Remain Overdue
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
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