Clydes took £23m loan to fund post-merger office move
Clyde & Co took a loan of £23.6m in the 2011/12 financial year to help fund the firm’s move to new offices in London.
According to Clydes’ LLP accounts the firm increased its banking facility from £15.4m in 2010/11 to £39m a year later. The firm’s overdraft facility also increased, from £4m to £7.2m, over the same period.
According to finance director Ian McAndrew part of the loan was agreed to fund the firm’s move to the St Botolph Building in the City in August 2011. The firm has agreed to repay the debt by April 2014 and plans to use the money it saves through a rent-free period to settle the debt.
The loan also includes a revolving debt agreement that is spread over three years to fund the growth of the firm. McAndrew said approximately half the credit agreement had been set aside as a property loan.
The accounts also show that the firm’s highest-earning partner for the year took home £1.27m, up 39 per cent from £913,616. It is more than double the firm’s average profit per equity partner (PEP), which, according to The Lawyer UK200, stood at £550,000 in 2011/12.
The firm’s move into Canada has proven successful following the merger with Nicholl Paskell-Mede, first revealed by The Lawyer in March 2011 (7 March 2011). For the period between 1 September 2011 and 30 April 2012 the Canada office generated a profit of £2.16m.
Clydes’ subsequent merger with BLG (6 June 2011) gave it a capital boost of £10m, with the amount of capital introduced to the firm increasing to £18m from £8.2m a year earlier.
The firm posted turnover of £285.8m at the last year-end, up 35 per cent from £211.4m a year earlier.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (17)
Muhammad Haque | 18-Jan-2013 9:17 am
But your report discloses nothing of use to 'the public' in the context of the 'business' of 'law'! HOW exactly did Clyde & Co increase its banking facilities? What SECRETS underline such mysterious achievements? And how did the 'earner' increased their 'earnings' given the five years of downturn, recession, and the now daily demand by the
deniers of the truth that the disenfranchised must continue to be robbed and looted even further....?
What statute, what gem of jurisprudence contains or hides inside it the answer to this most amazing question: how do they do it while the majority of Society is being told that it must allow the looters to carry on looting?
The role that 'the law', the 'rule of law', 'due process', play in the “economic performance” of “the Economy” [within whatever boundaries it is conceived of] is something that your outlet must report on. Otherwise, it is a moral, intellectual cul de sac. It is devoid of evidence that it is part of Society.
At which point the ‘lawyer’, be it your outlet or be it the notional individual law trader, becomes a parasite at the expense of Society!
It is time for you [thelawyer] to mull over the implications!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Confused.com | 18-Jan-2013 10:46 am
Who invited Muhammad Hope to the party?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jason | 18-Jan-2013 11:11 am
easy tiger,
for most of us the law is a soap opera about money usually and power of which there is actually very little, and sometimes power of which there's actually very little (unless you count decisions about the choice of paper suppliers or which colour to pint reception). Or its a horse race with runners and riders (and fallers). if you expect discussions about the law's wider impact on society i think you've wandered in to the wrong place
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Muhammad Haque | 18-Jan-2013 12:01 pm
I did.
My conscience did.
Evidence did.
The actions, the words and the policies of George Osborne, did Cameron, the CONDEM Collusion, did.
The absence of the overdue examination of the part played by the statuettes, the common law, the courts in the perpetration of discrimination in economic activities and lives of people daily, did.
The absence of citable, publicly announced or known or accessible evidence of any sustainable or significant intention on the part of the groups of law ‘practitioners’ and ‘law professional’ agencies, interests and lobbies to uphold universal rights and civil liberties in the UK, did.
The dearth of universally recognisable and substantiated democratic debate in the ‘elected’ part of the British Parliament, did.
The centuries old claims made by the law traders that they are in business to 'represent' the causes that otherwise would not get represented, did.
Society as it currently is, did.
The onward march of the backward forces and elements grabbing hold of the levers of economic ic and financial powers and those of the means of state ‘validations and legitimisation' that are being applied to create even more division and deprivation in Society while the small number of looters, robbers, deprivers are allowed to profit from the increasing disparities that are being created and perpetuated by central and locals agencies, did.
The central part in all this as played by ‘the banks and the banking system’, did.
The blatant abdication of responsibility to Society that is evident in the agendas, in the thinkings and in the biases and the prejudices for the rich and the robbing sections in Society and at the expense of Society in the ‘legal and the courts system’ in Britain, did.
The huge corruption inside the ‘law’ trade in the UK, did.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jan-2013 12:03 pm
Has Muhammad been turn down for a loan?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jan-2013 12:32 pm
MUHAMMED, BUDDY, TAKE SOME ANTI-DEPRESSANTS, DUDE.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jan-2013 3:10 pm
@Muhammad: Repetition and deviation, I'm afraid. It's over to Mr Payton. Michael, you have 55 seconds to talk about, "Clydes office move"...zzzz
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Terry | 19-Jan-2013 10:32 am
Muhammad
Your insight should be applauded - I suspect it is difficult for those inside the profession to fully appreciate the nuance of what your are stating.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2013 9:44 am
I agree with you that 'the statuettes' need to be investigated. They are a shadowy, sinister harmony singing group that many believe to be in control of the Supreme Court.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Crusader | 21-Jan-2013 4:56 pm
Back to the main agenda - £46.2m borrowing in addition to partner capital borrowings presumably underwritten by the firm! That's a hefty level of debt in total not simply in terms of the impact on overall net worth but to service in interest costs in what is already a challenging arena for margins from client work. Hopefully somebody has a good head for finances in the team.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment