Latham leads oil and gas M&A advisers in Q1–Q3 2026

$41.6 billion across 28 oil and gas M&A transactions: Latham & Watkins led both measures in GlobalData’s Q1–Q3 2026 league table for legal advisers.

By James Calloway

What does the ranking show?

GlobalData’s Deals Database ranked Latham first among firms advising on oil and gas mergers and acquisitions during the first three quarters of 2026. The firm advised on 10 transactions valued at $1 billion or more, and its total deal count rose from second to first, while the value of the deals it advised on declined from a year earlier.

GlobalData lead analyst Aurojyoti Bose said: “Latham & Watkins was the top adviser by value during Q1-Q3 2025 and managed to lead the table by this metric during Q1-Q3 2026 as well despite a year-on-year drop in the total value of deals it advised on.”

He also said: “During Q1-Q3 2026, Latham & Watkins advised on 10 billion-dollar deals and the involvement in these big-ticket deals helped it to lead the table.”

For oil and gas executives, financiers and other advisers, the result shows how a small group of large transactions can shape an M&A league table. Latham’s first place by count also indicates a broader transaction presence than a position driven by one deal.

The source does not provide enough detail to calculate market share or identify the transactions. In plain terms, Latham led on aggregate transaction value and transaction frequency.

Which firms sit behind Latham?

By deal value, the next four advisers were:

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — $38 billion.
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — $32.6 billion.
• Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson — $31.4 billion.
• Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer — $22.9 billion.

By transaction count, the firms behind Latham were:

• Kirkland & Ellis — 27 deals.
• Vinson & Elkins — 26.
• White & Case — 15.
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — 14.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher therefore appears in both top-five groups, with $38 billion across 14 transactions. Latham & Watkins leads both lists; the other value leaders and volume leaders occupy different positions.

The rankings compare firms by value and volume of oil and gas transactions on which they provided advice during the period. They do not show the size of each individual transaction or the industry-wide M&A total, so the table cannot establish Latham’s share of all sector deal activity.

Latham led both measures, while Gibson was the only other firm in the top five of each list.

How was the league table built?

GlobalData said its league tables rely on real-time tracking of thousands of company websites, advisory firm websites and other reliable sources in the secondary domain. A dedicated analyst team monitors those sources and gathers detailed information for each deal, including adviser names.

The company also seeks submissions from leading advisers, which it says adds robustness to the dataset. That process gives the ranking a stated collection method, but it remains a count of adviser roles and values rather than a transaction-by-transaction register of every oil and gas transaction.

The data concern transactions rather than named wells, refineries or terminals. The source does not assign the deals to basins, identify counterparties or distinguish sanctioned projects from appraisal-stage work. It therefore cannot show which upstream play, downstream facility or terminal sat behind a listed transaction.

The table supports adviser rankings, but it does not map the underlying assets or development stages.

What should practitioners watch?

At the end of the reported period, Latham held a one-deal lead over Kirkland & Ellis, 28 to 27, with 10 billion-dollar transactions supporting its first-place value position.

For deal teams, the practical test is whether the value ranking stays stable when year-end transactions enter the database and whether the count race remains close. A stronger lead would make Latham’s nine-month position look more durable; a narrowing gap would leave the volume ranking open.

Watch the year-end league table, especially the value and count of Q4 transactions, because they will show whether Latham’s lead has hardened or narrowed.