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
Home
Forum Home
Law Firm Directory
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Wiki
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Willkie Live: How to Write a Successful Vacation Scheme Application
📅 7 Oct 2025
🕠 5:30pm (UK)
🎥 Zoom (registration required)
Learn exactly how to write a successful application to Willkie Farr & Gallagher, with live examples + Q&A with
Gemma Baker
.
Register on Zoom →
Home
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Interviews Discussion
Mock M&A Case Study: Analysis
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="Amma Usman" data-source="post: 185143" data-attributes="member: 36740"><p>Hey [USER=35984]@futuretcholder[/USER] , thanks for your questions. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>versatility </em>- 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 <em><strong>quickly</strong></em> 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 <strong>vs.</strong> coming across as argumentative. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Amma Usman, post: 185143, member: 36740"] 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 [I]versatility [/I]- 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 [I][B]quickly[/B][/I] 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 [B]vs.[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Home
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Interviews Discussion
Mock M&A Case Study: Analysis
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…