Amarchand Mangaldas has taken an early lead in the 2011 Indian first quarter project finance rankings, racking up higher deal values than both Link Legal and last year’s busiest firm Luthra & Luthra combined, followed by Trilegal and Fox Mandal.
Amarchand acted on 5 project financings worth $6.1bn followed by Link Legal with $2.5bn through three projects, Luthra & Luthra with five projects worth a total of $2.2bn and Trilegal in fourth place with just a tad fewer, according to research by data provider dealogic.
In the previous full calendar year Luthra & Luthra had topped the charts, having acted on 25 deals worth $22.5bn, far ahead of Amarchand that was on $11.0bn with 19.
Also included in this first quarter’s list is new entrant S&R Associates, which had completed one road project in February of this year as reported by Legally India, alongside R&A Legal that finds itself in sixth place with five projects worth a total of $1.4bn to its name.
According to dealogic, project finance deal values increased to $27bn by 44 per cent this quarter as against the same period in 2010 – a far greater number than newly second-ranked Russia on $8.7bn, China with $6.9bn in third and the UK in fourth place with $4.5bn.
India Project Finance Legal Advisor Rankings - 1Q 2011
| Pos. | Legal Adviser | Amount ($m) | No. | %share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amarchand Mangaldas | 6,199 | 5 | 28.2 |
| 2 | Link Legal | 2,481 | 3 | 11.3 |
| 3 | Luthra & Luthra | 2,153 | 5 | 9.8 |
| 4 | Trilegal | 1,793 | 2 | 8.2 |
| 5 | Fox Mandal Little & Co | 1,715 | 2 | 7.8 |
| 6 | R & A Legal Advocates | 1,441 | 5 | 6.6 |
| 7 | SJ Law Advocates & Solicitors (India) | 1,431 | 2 | 6.5 |
| 8 | Dhir & Dhir Associates | 1,155 | 1 | 5.3 |
| 9 | Singhania & Co | 1,143 | 2 | 5.2 |
| 10 | S&R Associates | 575 | 1 | 2.6 |
Comments
The M&A league tables also depend to a certain extent on law firms self-reporting the deals that they do by issuing deal releases to the data provider (dealogic in this case).
While this means that a law firm that has zero deals in an area is unlikely to make it into the table, there are many firms that do not make it into the table because they do not report their deals.
This also explains why it can be a little erratic some quarters - for example, some firms may forget to do their submissions for one quarter, but then catch up the next quarter and jump up in the table.
Or it may be a symptom of a decreased deal flow, although that would be pure speculation on the basis of those numbers alone.
Unfortunately this is currently the best system there is of tracking these deals, despite its inaccuracies.
Hope that helps somewhat.
Best regards
Kian