Vaish Associates and Crawford Bayley advised Delhi-based liquor firm Globus Spirits in raising Rs 70 crore ($13m) from Templeton Strategic Emerging Markets Fund IV LDC (TSEM) which was advised by BMR Legal.
BMR Legal partner Amit Khansaheb - who joined the firm affiliated to consultancy BMR Advisors in January from Desai & Diwanji - acted for TSEM which is a fund managed by the Singapore-based Templeton Asset Management.
Vaish Associates Delhi partner Satwinder Singh, principal associate Sushma Mathur, and associates Kapil Minocha and Sumbhav Nagory with Crawford Bayley Mumbai senior partner Sanjay Asher acted for Globus.
The company raised the amount through issue of cumulative convertible preference shares (CCPS) to TSEM, and will use it to create a hub in eastern India. 5.03 million 4.75 per cent CCPS at Rs 140 each were issued, according to the Business Standard.
Globus has a significant market share in Delhi, Haryana, and Rajasthan in the country liquor segment.
Comments
There is a growing perception amongst the legal fraternity that the high standards of journalistic effort which were the once the hallmark of LI have been completly eroded. It is quite clear that the stories that LI now publishes are feeds received from the people involved and LI merely does a 'copy & paste' job. Your statement above that 'Sometimes we simply may not know the team, for various reasons...clearly proves the point you made no efforts whatsoever to develop or even verify the feed received and simply took the easy route of copy & paste. Come on Kian... instead of trying to justify your own lethargy be courageous enough to accept that its LIs fault... i hope this remains an abberation
In short there is simply not enough time to speak to every party involved and get their input and to confirm the name of every associate in every case, nor would I argue should that be priority in LI's deals in brief reporting, though it would be nice.
If you're unhappy that your name wasn't mentioned, please email us the names and we'll add them, or speak to your firm to email or call us more regularly about deals (with associate names too).
Best wishes
Kian
Its quite disappointing (though expected) that you are trying to justify lethargy and inaction of your team. Practice what you preach Mr. Kian. As a responsibe journalist its your duty to present the facts in as much detail as possible. It is a matter of regret that rather than raising the bar as far your responsibility is concerned you are simply trying to be arrogant by shooting the messenger and putting the blame for your inaction on a well wisher of yours. Instead of whining like a bureaucrat and making lame excuses aying you have so much work pressure and it is not possible to verify the details. If you dont have the resources and are not in a position to manage things well you shoudl atleast admit the shortcoming. Make a full disclosure. In the present case you just needed to say that the names of team members from the other two law firms mentioned could not be verified..period. Come on Kian... you have a duty to not disappoint the fraternity time and again
But if you say our 'duty is to present the facts in as much detail as possible', I strongly disagree with you there.
Journalism is about condensing facts into a story with just the right amount of detail required in each case (unfortunately within the increasingly limited editorial time and resources available to most news organizations). How much detail is an editorial judgment call, and unlike most lawyers we dont have the luxury of our readers reading through 20 page briefs on a simple matter, for example.
For deals in brief, our aims are, in rough order of priority:
- Inform readers about who's doing what in the industry, accurately, and in a concise format that strips unnecessary detail where possible.
- give a picture of partners' work and what kind of client relationships they have.
- act as a general feelgood thing for everyone who's worked hard on a deal...
In short, we try and will continue to get associate names if possible, but frankly, in each case there are 10 things that should be higher priority and are more important to the vast majority of readers.
I trust this makes sense.
Best wishes
Kian
Best wishes
Kian
In the present case for example, i fail to understand how can you justify overlooking the names of lawyers involved from the side of the two firms while you have mentioned the names of the entire team from the third firm. Its more of a hygiene and consistency issue which i suppose cannot be dispensed with. the omission raises doubts regarding the quality of your work and thats why we are having thso discussion.
Had i been involved in this deal i wud have certainly confronted you directly seeking reasons for this deliberate omission. i dont know what are the thoughts of the concerned people on this. But I agree with you that the discussion should be on the broader principles rather than an individual matter.
Its quite interesting when you say that you are only interested in giving a picture of 'partners' (emphasis supplied) work and what kind of client relationships they have. I fear this statement of yours wreaks of disdain for associates as a class and you chose to treat them as unimportant people and are trying to suggest that ppl are not interested in knowing what these lesser mortals (read associates) haev contributed.
Its understandable that you wish to hob nob with important people (read partners) but you have no right to be acting with such disdain for unimportant people. I condemn your statemet with full vehemence at my command. Can you please explain further
I never said that associates are "unimportant" or that we are "only interested in giving a paicture of partners work" as you say. But for a legal business publication, partners should be the first priority because they are the actual business owners (in some cases).
Consistency and publishing the names of all associates would be nice, but it should not be our top priority over getting the deals in brief out in a timely, concise and accurate manner.
Partners are undoubtedly at the apex of the structure and are responsible for the transaction but it is completly incorrect to undermine their role. You may not have directly said that they are unimportant but the tone and tenor of your comments directly implies the same. I challenge you to prove this by getting views from partners. I am confident there wil be very few who would agree with you in saying that the partners are the only owners of the business. To my understanding its a shared ownership with partners having the bulk of the responsibility. An honest partner level person (for eg. my boss) would like to put the team ahead of himself. Remember a Partner is only as good as his team.
Also why are you trying to avoid the charge of being selective???