Cobbetts and DWF abandon merger talks in uncertain market
DWF and Cobbetts have called off merger discussions, blaming “uncertain market conditions”.
In a joint statement, the firms said: “The preliminary discussions between DWF and Cobbetts regarding a potential merger have now come to a conclusion and we have made the decision not to progress these talks any further due to the current uncertainty in market conditions.
“Growth by merger and lateral hires continues to be an option for both firms but until any discussions are brought to a conclusion, we will not be in a position to talk about them publicly.”
The two firms confirmed that they were in merger talks in January (18 January 2012), though The Lawyer reported that not everybody was said to be on board with the move – including Cobbetts’ managing partner Michael Shaw (16 January 2012).
The combination would have created a firm with around £132m in turnover and 1,798 staff.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (22)
Anonymous | 31-Jan-2012 5:02 pm
Well, on 4 November 2011 it was an over zealous IT chap. Then, by 18 January 2012, they were officially talking. Now, late January 2012, it's all off. How much are we supposed to believe market conditions have become uncertain since 18 January (or even 4 November assuming the guy in IT was leading the talks)?
Their public pronouncements really are an insult to everybody's intelligence. Little wonder so many of the the staff seem miffed if this is typical of the quality and honesty of communication from management.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 8:59 am
Who has the most to lose from this PR debacle? Cobbetts - B'ham. No duplication of office and more support under the DWF brand to recruit higher earning Partners. It will be an interesting time to see what happens next....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 10:02 am
I don`t buy it that the Cobbetts Birmingham office will lose from this. All in all it is a well-performing office with distinct successes, especially in litigation and corporate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 10:42 am
Well here's a surprise. Cobbetts dire financial performances have been all over the legal press for ages. DWF now rumoured to have massive holes in their finances as it scrambles around to buy itself bigger. A well thought out match made in heaven - no? Perhaps they could both do with remembering that "turnover is vanity, profit is sanity...". DWF seems to be randomly grappling for them and Cobbetts would probably be happy with either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 10:55 am
Well my hunch that Dickinson Dees will end up merging with Cobbetts, still might come true.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 1:43 pm
Cobbetts are in a much better financial position than Dickinson Dees, so I doubt a merger would happen.
Especially as Cobbetts probably know which Dickinson Dees partners have already agreed to join DWF in Newcastle and Leeds.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 2:04 pm
Dicky Dees, no. Bet it's the sticker album people though they are rumored to be in a worse shape than us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 6:02 pm
I think DWF and Cobbetts have made a good point. I'm sure that there will be a certain market soon. Then they can start chatting again.
They must rue the day that the errant IT chap purchased the domain name.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 8:27 pm
Rumours about a hole in DWF's finances are wide of the mark. Borrowings down, PEP up, Newcastle office off to a flying start. There's one reason why this merger didnt happen and that's because they didnt fancy swallowing Cobbetts' debt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2012 10:54 pm
A lot of us in competition are worried about DWF's incessantly strengthening position, but DWF having holes in finances?- You're having a laugh. Just look at their figures, and their chief finance officer (who I understand is the ex chief at CMS Cameron McKenna and Baker and McKenzie) is highly respected. Come up with theories by all means, but let's at least make them plausible.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment