Lessons Learned From the Failed A&O-O'Melveny Talks
The talks dragged on for years, partners were left in the dark and conflicting messages emerged. Then, the market turned.
September 03, 2019 at 07:14 AM
4 minute read
It is easy to use the benefit of hindsight to say a deal was never likely. But Allen & Overy's ill-fated merger attempt with O'Melveny & Myers really did come close to achieving the near impossible.
Then again, few would have been surprised to see Monday's news that the deal is off.
Agreeing to things such as a name and a basic remuneration structure should not be sniffed at. Many other firms have failed to get so close during transatlantic negotiations. Yet for all the growth and diversification benefits a merger would bring, it also threw up a few awkward questions.
Was the tie-up absolutely necessary? What lock-up system should be employed? How would it benefit A&O's banking and finance teams? What about New York? What dollar-pound exchange rate should be used for partner compensation?
The exchange rate point has been blamed as the culprit for the collapse, which is not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Where partners sit on a lockstep ladder would require an agreed exchange rate, even if only to begin with, which could easily upset one group of partners. It could at least be argued that the recent fluctuations in the pound came at just the wrong time, when other issues had finally been resolved.
And yet while the value of the pound could have proved a death knell for the tie-up, it was clear well before the recent drop in sterling that it would not be easy to get this deal past partners.
It is one thing to agree basic terms and quite another to have literally hundreds of people sign up to them. Not even strong arm tactics – such as A&O's management threatening an open partner ballot – seemed to have much effect.
When large law firm mergers happen, they tend to be fairly quick and have the backing of a lot of people. In contrast, for A&O and O'Melveny, talks dragged on for about two years and numerous partners complained about being left in the dark. There were conflicting messages about how talks were progressing.
And even sessions designed to promote unity among both sides were sometimes dampened by something small such as a thoughtless remark, according to one person involved.
For A&O, the failed talks leave it back at square one. It now has to decide whether to seek out another suitor for a merger – which would probably prove an even more difficult task – or whether to try to build a credible practice there organically, which no top U.K. firm has yet managed to do.
For O'Melveny, the series of departures from its London office as well as its head of Brussels today leave it with a huge rebuilding exercise ahead. It also needs to decide what exactly it wants to be known for outside its traditional strength of U.S. litigation.
The merger failure also holds implications for other top U.K. firms, particularly Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters, which will now have to accept that even the second tier of U.S. firms are all but out of reach when attempting a full-blown, financially integrated combination.
In short, it is hard to draw any positives from the whole episode. But perhaps a few lessons have been learned. Keeping up momentum is vital, as is keeping partners updated. And although some are sceptical of the idea, predicting macroeconomic uncertainty – especially in this market – has also become an important part of the process.
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 AllAdapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond
Less Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
6 minute readHow My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
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