Q: Why did ATT attempt to merge with T-Mobile when there were huge anti-trust issues?
But the advisers that AT&T’s board were listening to most intently were the lawyers who would be on the front lines of the battle: Arnold & Porter and Crowell & Moring, which worked the antitrust strategy in Washington. (Sullivan & Cromwell worked on the deal mechanics.)
Those firms all charge by the hour, so the cynic — or skeptic — might suggest they had every incentive to push the deal ahead.
According to people involved in the decision-making process, the lawyers put the chances of success at 60 to 70 percent.
For AT&T’s board, that was a chance worth taking. The question they now must ask themselves: would they use those lawyers again?
Cheap Talk 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 29, 2011 at 10:49 am
Kevin
the board must’ve priced the lawyers’ incentives
November 30, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Michael Webster
Most other competent firms would have also made the same incorrect prediction. Unfortunately, law firms are not penalized for not being expert predictors in their area of expertise. Odd.
December 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Gimlet
If DT wanted to unload it, there are only a handful of ways to do so. They could have spun it off in a public offering, but they likely thought they’d get a lot more money from a strategic buyer. Also, bankers are often the ones pushing the deal, and they get paid a lot more than the lawyers for a successful deal – and nothing for no deal. So they have an incentive to push a “swing for the fences” strategy.