Greenberg Traurig Maher makes loss in first full year in City
Greenberg Traurig’s London office, Greenberg Traurig Maher (GTM), raked in £8.7m in its first full financial year, according to the firm’s LLP accounts.
Paul Maher
In the financial year from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 turnover at the practice was £8.7m, a big jump on the £3.6m that the firm earned in the eight months between June 2009, when it launched, and March 2010.
But the office still made a loss of £714,000 for the financial year, after incurring £9.4m in expenses. In 2009-10, the firm lost £3.3m following set up costs of £7.1m (2 May 2011).
GTM also owes £3.5m to its parent firm in the US, up from £1.4m the previous year.
The LLP accounts confirm that no call has been made on partners at GTM to put in any capital into the business in the 2010-11 financial year.
Greenberg Traurig Maher launched in 2009, when the US firm hired former Mayer Brown co-vice chairman Paul Maher to run the practice (22 June 2009).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (20)
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 9:44 am
Presumably the loss was before any partner guarantees paid by the US were taken into account. If that is the case then you are looking at a very much larger number.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 10:04 am
Hubris on a grand scale.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 10:55 am
No wonder its new partner hires are taking flight so soon after touch down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 12:24 pm
The financials quoted in the article are a year old so most the above comments are irrelevant. Leaving that aside, 0-8 million in a year represents the fastest growth rate of any U.S. firm in the city. GTM invested heavily and so always expected to make a return over 3-5 years. It's well on course to do that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 1:10 pm
No doubt the US GTM partners are delighted. £3.5m owed to them by a business that made a loss of nearly £1m last year. I wonder if they think that the figures are 'irrelevant' ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2012 2:08 pm
I agree the figure's irrelevant because it's not up to date. Having a discussion on GTM's performance based on these figures is as pointless as having a discussion about Linklaters PEP for 1950 and deducing things about its partner satisfaction today in 2012.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mickey | 11-Jan-2012 7:41 am
Blame Jeveons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Jan-2012 11:31 am
PR Machine on overdrive.
The figures may be a year old but it's still a loss. I'm sure that they'll make a profit this year.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Jan-2012 1:13 pm
GTM's intending to make a return over 3-5 years. That was always the plan and still is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Jan-2012 10:40 pm
Was it also the plan to hire a load of partners offloaded by other firms, grow too fast and then down size even faster?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment