Anatomy of a deal: the Verizon Vodafone acquisition Forum

[Old Gregg]

Simpson got Vodafone and Microsoft. Killin it.

This too. Jesus. I think I said in another thread that STB is a PE giant, but look at this shit. This combined with Dell... jesus.

Didn't STB also do the Facebook IPO and the recent comically large Apple bond offering?

Yeah but that was last year.

[Anonymous User]

Simpson got Vodafone and Microsoft. Killin it.

This too. Jesus. I think I said in another thread that STB is a PE giant, but look at this shit. This combined with Dell... jesus.

The Dell deal played to their strength in P/E.

STB never gets that much love from the TLS echo chamber...never understood why. It's as good as S&C DPW CSM and the like but I know few people who picked STB over them.

And a hearty lol at the notion of lenders and their advisors being also-rans with $60+bb on the line.

[Old Gregg]

And a hearty lol at the notion of lenders and their advisors being also-rans after with $60+bb on the line.

Sounds like a noob.

[BluePurgatory]

Edit: One dollar law firm Bob!

[KidStuddi]

STB never gets that much love from the TLS echo chamber...never understood why.

People think V5/V3 means something significant. V5+STB used to be a thing, idk what happened to that.

[Anonymous User]

And a hearty lol at the notion of lenders and their advisors being also-rans after with $60+bb on the line.

Sounds like a noob.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "ancillary". No doubt a $60 billion financing, the largest in history, is real. There's a reason that Wachtell lists more finance lawyers on the deal than corporate lawyers. But being counsel to the banks is nowhere near the role that being deal counsel is. Giving the same league table credit to the banks' counsel as to the deal counsel is a bit of a joke. Though, admittedly, nowhere near the joke of giving the same league table credit to the financial advisors' counsel. Giving league table credit on a $130 billion deal for negotiating an engagement letter and drafting a fairness opinion is absurd.

Edit: from enibs - didn't intend for this to be anonymous.

[enibs]

STB never gets that much love from the TLS echo chamber...never understood why.

People think V5/V3 means something significant. V5+STB used to be a thing, idk what happened to that.

Personally, I'd take STB over any of CSM, DPW and S&C, though I can understand someone making a different choice as among those four. But in my mind, it's not even close over Skadden. (And no, I don't work at STB.)

[Anonymous User]

STB never gets that much love from the TLS echo chamber...never understood why.

People think V5/V3 means something significant. V5+STB used to be a thing, idk what happened to that.

Personally, I'd take STB over any of CSM, DPW and S&C, though I can understand someone making a different choice as among those four. But in my mind, it's not even close over Skadden. (And no, I don't work at STB.)

I've never understood this. Why do you consider Skadden to be on a different rung of the ladder entirely? (And no, I don't work at Skadden.)

[enibs]

STB never gets that much love from the TLS echo chamber...never understood why.

People think V5/V3 means something significant. V5+STB used to be a thing, idk what happened to that.

Personally, I'd take STB over any of CSM, DPW and S&C, though I can understand someone making a different choice as among those four. But in my mind, it's not even close over Skadden. (And no, I don't work at STB.)

I've never understood this. Why do you consider Skadden to be on a different rung of the ladder entirely? (And no, I don't work at Skadden.)

I think of it as a huge factory. Some excellent lawyers but inconsistent quality. And I know a bunch of people who have gone there and been unhappy.

[thesealocust]

Yeah, the obsession with ranking things gets in the way when you're looking at the fine distinctions amongst the "top" firms. There are a handful of firms, probably 15 to 20, that are so good at basically every field they choose to practice in that you'll be splitting hairs when you compare them. If any given candidate has specific information about the field or geography they want to go in, some of those hairs might be worth splitting, but otherwise Vault and thinking based on Vault really misses the mark.

[thesealocust]

Looks like Debevoise + Milbank for what is looking likely to be the largest debt offering in the history of large debt offerings ($20,000,000,000 -- 11 figures!):

Boring link: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... d424b5.htm

Slightly less boring link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

[Old Gregg]

Yeah, the obsession with ranking things gets in the way when you're looking at the fine distinctions amongst the "top" firms. There are a handful of firms, probably 15 to 20, that are so good at basically every field they choose to practice in that you'll be splitting hairs when you compare them. If any given candidate has specific information about the field or geography they want to go in, some of those hairs might be worth splitting, but otherwise Vault and thinking based on Vault really misses the mark.

I feel like USNews has fucked up overachieving millenials.

[Anonymous User]

I've never understood this. Why do you consider Skadden to be on a different rung of the ladder entirely? (And no, I don't work at Skadden.)

I think of it as a huge factory. Some excellent lawyers but inconsistent quality. And I know a bunch of people who have gone there and been unhappy.

Interviewed at all these places, and asked about peer firms during all interviews (though not this bluntly). S&C and Cravath generally consider themselves to be peers with each other and with WLRK. DPW and STB are often mentioned favorably as well. Skadden is strong overall, but not so much in New York. The most common assessment of Skadden at other top NY firms is that it has excellent partners, but the quality of associates is inconsistent. Also, unlike WLRK/S&C/CSM, Skadden works on a lot more smaller deals (which it places a shadow B-team of associates on) even though the total value of its deals over ten years is high (comparable to S&C and higher than WLRK/CSM).

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I'd take STB over any of CSM, DPW and S&C, though I can understand someone making a different choice as among those four. But in my mind, it's not even close over Skadden. (And no, I don't work at STB.)

I've never understood this. Why do you consider Skadden to be on a different rung of the ladder entirely? (And no, I don't work at Skadden.)

I think of it as a huge factory. Some excellent lawyers but inconsistent quality. And I know a bunch of people who have gone there and been unhappy.

Not OP. Interviewed at all these places, and asked about peer firms during all interviews (though not this bluntly). S&C and Cravath generally consider themselves to be peers with each other and with WLRK. DPW and STB are often mentioned favorably as well. Skadden is strong overall, but not so much in New York. The most common assessment of Skadden at other top NY firms is that it has excellent partners, but the quality of associates is inconsistent. Also, unlike WLRK/S&C/CSM, Skadden works on a lot more smaller deals (which it places a shadow B-team of associates on) even though the total value of its deals over ten years is high (comparable to S&C and higher than WLRK/CSM).[/quote]

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I'd take STB over any of CSM, DPW and S&C, though I can understand someone making a different choice as among those four. But in my mind, it's not even close over Skadden. (And no, I don't work at STB.)

I've never understood this. Why do you consider Skadden to be on a different rung of the ladder entirely? (And no, I don't work at Skadden.)

I think of it as a huge factory. Some excellent lawyers but inconsistent quality. And I know a bunch of people who have gone there and been unhappy.

Not OP. Interviewed at all these places, and asked about peer firms during all interviews (though not this bluntly). S&C and Cravath generally consider themselves to be peers with each other and with WLRK. DPW and STB are often mentioned favorably as well. Skadden is strong overall, but not so much in New York. The most common assessment of Skadden at other top NY firms is that it has excellent partners, but the quality of associates is inconsistent. Also, unlike WLRK/S&C/Cravath, Skadden works on a lot more smaller deals (which it places a shadow B-team of associates on) even though the total value of its deals over ten years is high (comparable to S&C and higher than WLRK/Cravath).

[thesealocust]

Yeah, the obsession with ranking things gets in the way when you're looking at the fine distinctions amongst the "top" firms. There are a handful of firms, probably 15 to 20, that are so good at basically every field they choose to practice in that you'll be splitting hairs when you compare them. If any given candidate has specific information about the field or geography they want to go in, some of those hairs might be worth splitting, but otherwise Vault and thinking based on Vault really misses the mark.

I feel like USNews has fucked up overachieving millenials.

Agreed. And the problem is that the top law schools provide a huge shot of confirmation bias to the Cult of Ranking Things, because even though fine distinctions can still be tough the "best" law schools really do produce tremendously better employment outcomes, on average, than the "lesser" law schools. It's one of the only things I can think of where rankings mania has a strong basis in reality.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, the obsession with ranking things gets in the way when you're looking at the fine distinctions amongst the "top" firms. There are a handful of firms, probably 15 to 20, that are so good at basically every field they choose to practice in that you'll be splitting hairs when you compare them. If any given candidate has specific information about the field or geography they want to go in, some of those hairs might be worth splitting, but otherwise Vault and thinking based on Vault really misses the mark.

I feel like USNews has fucked up overachieving millenials.

Agreed. And the problem is that the top law schools provide a huge shot of confirmation bias to the Cult of Ranking Things, because even though fine distinctions can still be tough the "best" law schools really do produce tremendously better employment outcomes, on average, than the "lesser" law schools. It's one of the only things I can think of where rankings mania has a strong basis in reality.

S&C/Cravath/WLRK are the HYS (or Harvard, Princeton, or MIT/Caltech according to the following article) of New York corporate law. DPW would be CLS. Joking. But people seriously have written articles on this before (http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/buying-i ... -rankings/).

[thesealocust]

S&C/Cravath/WLRK are the HYS (or Harvard, Princeton, or MIT/Caltech according to the following article) of New York corporate law. DPW would be CLS. Joking. But people seriously have written articles on this before (http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/buying-i ... -rankings/).

Subtle S&C/Cravath trolling

[Old Gregg]

S&C/Cravath/WLRK are the HYS (or Harvard, Princeton, or MIT/Caltech according to the following article) of New York corporate law. DPW would be CLS. Joking. But people seriously have written articles on this before (http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/buying-i ... -rankings/).

Subtle S&C/Cravath trolling

I had a hunch that I shouldn't take anonymous partner seriously before. This only confirms it.

[worldwithoutend]

Simpson got Vodafone and Microsoft. Killin it.

This too. Jesus. I think I said in another thread that STB is a PE giant, but look at this shit. This combined with Dell... jesus.

Don't forget Office Depot/Office Max. Monster year for them.

And Smithfield Foods.

[thesealocust]

WSJ says the bond offering may be nearing $50 billion o.0;;