Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yminh" data-source="post: 2964" data-attributes="member: 687">Hi Jaysen,I'm a little bit confused about what you wrote in the China bit. So initially, Linklaters was looking for a merger with another Chinese firm, like King & Wood Mallesons did, but then abadoned this to go for the greenfield option? Or did you mean Linklaters were looking to establish a joint venture with a Chinese firm but then decided to do a greenfield?  If it was the latter, can you explain a little bit more why Linklaters eventually opted for the greenfield option instead of pushing for a joint venture with an already-existed Chinese law firm, given that the end result was that Linklaters will be able to practise Chinese law.  I tried to look into this myself, but many articles written on this required subscription <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown    :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom