Commercial Awareness Digest - 21st November 2025

What the Ashurst-Perkins Coie Merger Reveals About Modern M&A

By Zuha Malik

In today’s market, companies increasingly rely on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as a form of inorganic growth. Building new capabilities internally is slow and expensive; acquiring them e

xternally is often faster and strategically smarter. This logic now applies not only to corporates, but also to law firms, which are acting more like the clients they advise. A clear example is the newly announced merger between Ashurst and Perkins Coie, one of the most significant UK-US tie-ups in years.

Before understanding why this merger matters, it helps to clarify the terminology. Theoretical distinctions exist: in a merger, two companies combine and continue together as a new entity; in an acquisition, one company buys another through its shares or assets. In practice, however, these terms are often used interchangeably because “merger” sounds more collaborative (certainly helpful when maintaining client confidence and staff morale).

An important question is why firms choose to merge at all. Companies ultimately seek to grow and increase value. Organic growth - building new products or maybe hiring expertise - takes time. M&A accelerates this by giving instant access to new capabilities and talent. A central concept here is synergy, the idea that 2 + 2 = 5: the combined entity is worth more than the sum of its parts. Revenue synergies might come from cross-selling or combining distribution networks; cost synergies can stem from removing duplicated systems or benefiting from greater scale. Other motives include acquihires (buying for talent), access to intellectual property, diversifying risk or increasing market share.

These drivers map neatly onto Ashurst’s merger with Perkins Coie. The combined firm - Ashurst Perkins Coie - will have 3,000 lawyers, 52 offices across 23 countries and estimated revenues of $2.7bn, making it one of the world’s top 20 law firms. For Ashurst, the deal delivers long-sought access to the US, the world’s most lucrative legal market. For Perkins Coie, it provides a globally integrated platform across Europe, Asia and Australia. Together, they gain complementary strengths in technology, IP, energy, infrastructure and financial services, alongside a shared push to lead the market in AI-enabled legal services. Notably, talks continued despite political pressure from a Trump executive order targeting Perkins Coie - reinforcing that the merger is a long-term strategic play.

For aspiring commercial lawyers, this is an ideal example to discuss in interviews. It shows you understand M&A fundamentals as well as key sector trends, and also how firms evolve to meet client demand in a global, tech-driven legal market.

Bidding War over Warner Bros to potentially reshape film industry

By Esme Glover

An interesting development is unfolding in the entertainment and media M&A space this week as David Ellison, Paramount’s chief executive, enters a bidding war to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). Amid other bidders preparing their offers, including Comcast and Netflix, Paramount is seeking to position themselves as the most capable, claiming they would navigate regulatory reviews with the most ease. With the deadline for the first-round of bids being the 20th of November, investors are watching closely as this deal has the potential to reshape Hollywood, particularly if Paramount’s bid is successful.

Both Paramount, a global media and entertainment company, and Comcast, the owners of NBCUniversal, are looking to expand their streaming services. However, their bids differ significantly in scope. Paramount’s proposal reportedly includes the entirety of the target company, Warner Bros. Discovery, whereas Comcast is only seeking to acquire their movie, TV and streaming businesses. From a legal perspective, Comcast’s more limited proposal may face less regulatory pushback, whereas Paramount’s bid may trigger high antitrust concerns. This is due to their combined market share being considerably high, as well as a potential domination of the news industry occurring as a byproduct of the Paramount-WBD merger.

The financial aspects of the merger also present notable challenges. Paramount’s market capitalisation, the current value of a publicly traded company, of approximately 16.8 billion USD, is significantly lower than WBD’s which stands at 56.7 billion USD. This suggests that a significant amount of funding will be needed on the buyer side of the transaction, with Forbes suggesting that this could result in a reliance on private equity or debt which ultimately increases the complexity of the financing involved. Consequently, the transaction will require extensive advisory work from specialist teams in law firms including, corporate M&A practices, Private Equity practices, Banking and Finance teams, alongside others. Due diligence, the investigation of a target company to flag any risks before a transaction is undergone, will be particularly critical given the level of debt that Paramount may be required to assume.

Meanwhile, Netflix’s unexpected involvement in the bidding war has sparked speculation about their intentions. Historically, Netflix has prioritised internal growth through the creation of their own businesses, over large-scale M&A transactions. Some analysts suggest that Netflix may be using the bid process to gain insights into WBD, a key competitor of theirs in terms of streaming services. During the bidding process, key information about a target company is disclosed to bidders to inform their decision, including information on the financial health of the target, their strategies and employment information. Nevertheless, Netflix appears to be proceeding with its offer which includes all studio related assets of WBD, excluding their cable TV networks.

At least two rounds of bids are expected before a buyer is selected, leaving the media industry in suspense. The outcome may drastically alter the competitive landscape of streaming services, as well as Hollywood more generally, depending on which bidder ultimately prevails.

Edit by Artyom Timofeev