Posted Nov 26, 2013 08:20 pm CST
Management at both Dentons and McKenna Long & Aldridge had recommended to partners that the two law firms merge.
But partners at McKenna balked at the plan when it was put to a vote, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) reports.
Although 75 percent had approved the potential megamerger, partners’ votes were weighted according to their equity interest in the firm. When it became clear that the required two-thirds majority was not going to be satisfied, the vote was called off. Meanwhile, 99 percent of the partners at Dentons had OK’d the combination, which would have created a 3,000-attorney combined firm.
An unidentified Dentons partner told the newspaper that a powerful group of McKenna partners were concerned that globalization would lessen the strength of their firm’s brand.
This is the second time this week that there has been news of a possible megamerger biting the dust. Talks about a possible combination of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman were called off due to client conflicts. Together, those two firms would have had about 2,000 attorneys.
ABAJournal.com: “Dentons and McKenna Long are discussing a merger”
ABAJournal.com: “Is Dentons megamerger with McKenna Long still moving forward?”
ABAJournal.com: “Orrick and Pillsbury end merger talks”