Normal
Hey [USER=35984]@futuretcholder[/USER] , thanks for your questions.1. With this question, it really depends. If your answer is objectively incorrect and you know this yourself, then there is no point pushing. One of the key skills of a lawyer is versatility - the ability to change your reasoning when presented with new facts. Often times, a partner would even find it more admirable when you are able to think on the spot and come up with new thoughts based on their own perspectives. That said, be mindful of too quickly changing your opinion when a partner challenges you. This is one of the fun parts of an interview - seeing if you can support your point when challenged. During times like this, one needs to be mindful of how they come across as it’s a thin line between being polite and getting your views across vs. coming across as argumentative.2. I like your thoughts on this. Proceeding with an asset sale excluding the asset undergoing litigation could very well be an answer, but its also worth noting that indirectly this means majority of the business is being acquired - in other words, a share purchase may be more appropriate. This is because it is clear that a vast majority of the business would undergo M&A activity. It all depends on how you argue your point. You could recommend a share purchase - outright acquisition of all the shares of the company, but suggest ways to limit the effects of the litigation. If from the outset, the litigation could severely outweigh all the benefits of acquiring the company, perhaps the deal shouldn’t even proceed at all.
Hey [USER=35984]@futuretcholder[/USER] , thanks for your questions.
1. With this question, it really depends. If your answer is objectively incorrect and you know this yourself, then there is no point pushing. One of the key skills of a lawyer is versatility - the ability to change your reasoning when presented with new facts. Often times, a partner would even find it more admirable when you are able to think on the spot and come up with new thoughts based on their own perspectives. That said, be mindful of too quickly changing your opinion when a partner challenges you. This is one of the fun parts of an interview - seeing if you can support your point when challenged. During times like this, one needs to be mindful of how they come across as it’s a thin line between being polite and getting your views across vs. coming across as argumentative.
2. I like your thoughts on this. Proceeding with an asset sale excluding the asset undergoing litigation could very well be an answer, but its also worth noting that indirectly this means majority of the business is being acquired - in other words, a share purchase may be more appropriate. This is because it is clear that a vast majority of the business would undergo M&A activity. It all depends on how you argue your point. You could recommend a share purchase - outright acquisition of all the shares of the company, but suggest ways to limit the effects of the litigation. If from the outset, the litigation could severely outweigh all the benefits of acquiring the company, perhaps the deal shouldn’t even proceed at all.
