Linklaters moots tie-up with Slaughters' Aussie best friend
Linklaters is understood to be in tie-up talks with Slaughter and May’s Australian best friend Allens Arthur Robinson (AAR), The Lawyer can reveal.
Linklaters
According to sources close to the firms, Linklaters and AAR have been talking about a potential tie-up for a number of months, though the firms have not been able to agree terms.
The last time Linklaters was in talks with an Australian firm was in 2000, when it was close to tying up with Mallesons Stephen Jacques - a deal the firms called Project Rainbow.
A Linklaters spokesperson said: “Linklaters has a large Australian client base and we do a lot of work for international clients in relation to Australia. We work closely with all the leading Australian law firms and frequently meet them all around the world.”
AAR has a non-exclusive best friends relationship with Slaughters, as do a number of firms globally, including Chinese firm Jun He. This is not the first time Slaughters has seen rivals try to establish a relationship with its best friends, with Macfarlanes seconding a partner to Jun He this year in an attempt to develop its ties with the firm (23 January 2012).
Meanwhile, Linklaters’ erst while Singapore joint venture partner Allen & Gledhill is close to doing a deal with magic circle rival Allen & Overy, with Singapore’s Ministry of Justice understood to be considering the firms’ plans (3 November 2011).
Mallesons announced its tie-up with Chinese firm King & Wood in December 2011 (15 December 2011).
It has also emerged that Herbert Smith is pursuing a one-firm merger with Freehills. The two firms have been in talks for some time (17 January 2012) but it was unclear whether they would follow the approach of Ashurst and Blake Dawson, which will combine their Asia operations initially before merging in 2014 (26 September 2011), or go for an outright merger.
Slaughters and Herbert Smith declined to comment. AAR could not be reached for comment.
Readers' comments (4)
Anon | 28-Feb-2012 1:58 pm
A proper merger makes perfect sense strategically for both firms.
Linklaters would gain a market leading presence in a continent in which it is presently effectivley absent, and a significantly expanded presence in Asia.
Allens Arthur Robinson would generally gain scale and resources, as well as a market leading platform in Europe.
The combined firm would remain weak in both North and South America and Africa, but have greater resources to invest there.
A mere "alliance" would achieve little benefit however, and arguably actually place Linklaters in a weaker postiion than present.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 9:06 pm
Makes no sense at all, good move for Allens - Linklaters would be selling itself short. Why cull 70 quality partners who return far more than any Allens partner ever could, then merge with a firm that does half your PEP and is a domestic practice in a market with little scope for expansion i.e. the big Aussie companies are already operating outside Australia, are sophisticated and will not make their counsel decisions any differently. Will BHP stop instructing Slaughters? not likely.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 9:39 am
Given their latest round of self-harming, if you were an AAH partner would you vote for a merger with LL? Turkeys/Christmas etc. An Alliance with a barge pole might be a safer bet.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 12:37 pm
I think this is an excellent idea. I would encourage Linklaters to get on and merge with AAR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment