Multiple Choice on "Hollister"
 

A case I'm working settled yesterday, so as any highly-paid, well-educated lawyer working for a prestigous law firm would do, I went to the mall. Lo and behold, there is a store called "Hollister Co." (see website: http://www.hollisterco.com/webapp/wc...?storeId=10251)

So I think the answer to Mr. Slothrop's original quiz is (c).

going in-house at Google
 

So basically it's an empty offer that no one will take. Cool.

going in-house at Google
 

Yeah, that's some quality work right there by Wilson Sonsini--not only did they fail to file the paperwork, they get to bill Google for the rescission offer too--which nobody is going to do. Good going Death Star, keep on rockin!

Didn't Gray Cary represent Google prior to WSGR?

Not positive it's WSGR's mess, but I could certainly be wrong...

No. Google has been a high profile client of WSGR from very early on. It was reported that Larry Sonsini incorporated them himself in 1998 (i.e. he had the associate put his name on the Cert. of Incorporation). Their current GC is also a former Wilson partner, who in other news, is being looked at for alleged accounting problems at his last employer, where he acted as CFO.

Can't lay this on on Gray Cary, this is all WSGR.

Sweeeet. (Not a WSGR fan.)

You know, it's hit or miss over there for me. I've worked with some really great attorneys there, sometimes, not so much. It's kind of like that with most firms, I guess, but the difference with WSGR is that it's intentionally run as a bunch of fiefdoms, run by different feudal lords. So if you have the right group, you're golden, and if not, well, sorry. It really isn't much of a big deal, missed securities filings happen (although missing it in 10+ states for your highest profile client isn't too impressive, especially when about every state has an 701-type exemption readily available), and you would think that they would have moved a lot earlier to fix it as so not to potentially scare potential investors (and the market) prior to their IPO.

It actually makes me feel better--the next time I mess up, I can say I'm just like a biglaw atty.

You're just bitter because they wouldn't interview/hire you.

T. (old skool, eh Sidd?) S.

going in-house at Google
 

Think they'll get the eventual litigation, too?

going in-house at Google
 

Maybe. But not if you get Google to hire you in a malpractice suit against WSGR, Mr. Fancy Litigation Pants. Then maybe you could get dual 50" plasma screens to play Halo on. Be sure to invite me.

Agreed re hit or miss. Some of my best friends work there - no, really, I'm serious - and there are some good people there, but there are also a lot of sloppy assholes (not a good image - sorry) and the firm's overall culture seems to be a mix of arrogance combined with "eh, close enough, we probably won't get sued over it."

Given the fiefdom structure, though, you're right - to say one dislikes WSGR overall is like disliking Italy back when it was a bunch of city-states; it would be more accurate to specify which group. Too bad they aren't named accordingly (Venezia, Firenze, Napoli, etc.); if they were, I could just say how the guys in Puglia are a bunch of jerks and everyone could nod in sympathy.

Oh, and Ty? I did interview back in the day, but the guy was such an arrogant ass that it was clear we were not going anywhere.

Ty really wasn't picking on you, it was more of a throwback insult to the old days--don't take it personally. I was half expecting more insults like that towards me--and I certainly would never have even gotten an interview at the Death Star, so kudos!

Agreed, but it should have been caught before the S-1 was filed. My guess is that the SEC gave them the comment.

going in-house at Google
 

Why should they? I just skimmed the filing, but in most states, all you get in a recission is return of purchase price plus statutory interest. They'll likely get more by holding and selling once the lockup expires.

going in-house at Google
 

If done right, I think the recission offer may cleanse the fuck up.