Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
Watson Glaser and Case Study Resources
Law Firm Insight: Linklaters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yminh" data-source="post: 2964" data-attributes="member: 687"><p>Hi Jaysen,</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yminh, post: 2964, 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 :( [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
Watson Glaser and Case Study Resources
Law Firm Insight: Linklaters
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…