Majmudar, Trilegal, AZB, Kim Law on $10m Burill-Strand Life Sciences PE

Thursday, 21 February 2013 By Legally India Private equity / VC

Majmudar & Partners and US law firm Kim Law Advisors advised San Francisco’s Burill & Company in its Rs 54 crore ($10m) primary and secondary investment in the Trilegal-advised Bangalore-based Strand Life Sciences, including buying out its lead investors WestBridge Capital and Ascent Capital. WestBridge was advised by AZB & Partners.

Majmudar Bangalore partner N Raja Sujith acted for Burill which is a diversified global financial services firm focussed on the life sciences sector.

Trilegal Bangalore partner Kosturi Ghosh acted for Strand in what Biospectrum Asia reported was a series B financing by Burill.

AZB & Partners Bangalore partner Srinath Dasari acted for WestBridge – a series A lead investor in Strand, which according to Startup Central had picked up a 20 per cent stake in the company for a reported $1.9m in 2002.

Comments

InsideOutside 21 Feb 2013, 11:16

+5 -2

In an ideal world I wouldn't ask this question, but can anyone tell me whether law firms overseas have some sort of stated or unstated policy (or if the regulators prescribe any rules, restrictions or procedures to followed) when it comes to a partner (say partner X) of one firm acting for a particular client wherein that partners (i.e. partner X) spouse is a partner (say partner Y) at a competing law firm and partner Y is acting for a client which is one of parties on the other side of deal? Isn't there ethical issues with this? - curious client

youbeeceetee 22 Feb 2013, 06:05

+0 -0

rather surprised that kian is not aware of who the counsel at westbridge is and which lawfirm she left in bangalore.

Dazed and Confused 23 Feb 2013, 10:55

+1 -0

While it's hard to say on the skeletal facts given, there is no per se conflict for a US lawyer in such a representation. This may well be awkward. But if you understand that in house counsel in India are not (supposed to be) licensed lawyers, and are as subject to lawyer ethics regulation as the company's sweeper. If someone would like to flesh out the relationships described here in a purely factual manner - which should pass muster of the LI censor - maybe we could have a fruitful discussion. Otherwise, this looks like sniping.

The folks involved with the deal should themselves proffer the info, so that they do not look like back scratching, favour-trading influence peddlers hood winking their unsuspecting clients - not that they are, of course. Let them detail their deal teams do we may assess their press releases.

Commenting is closed for this article.