Nishith Desai bags rare non-SAM Jio investment in $1.2bn Abu Dhabi Mubadala round with AZB, Skaddens, DP

Friday, 26 June 2020 By Legally India Private equity / VC

Abu Dhabi-based sovereign investor Mubadala Investment Company will buy 1.85% stake in Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Platforms for ₹9,093.60 crore, the Reliance Industries Ltd subsidiary said in a release… The latest transaction gives Jio Platforms an equity valuation of Rs4.91 trillion and an enterprise value of Rs5.16 trillion, the same pricing at which private equity giant KKR bought a 2.32% stake in Jio, the last deal, declared on 22 May.

— Mint

Nishith Desai Associates advised Mubadala Investment Company led by Delhi office head and partner Pratibha Jain, Bangalore office co-head and senior leader Parag Srivastava and senior associate Atikant Kaur. On tax advised partner Rajesh Simhan and leader Ashish Sodhani. Due diligence assistance was provided by lawyers Sindhu Sambrani, Jaideep Reddy, Inika Charles and Jyoti Gautam.

The instruction is notable for being the rare recent Jio investment that did not see Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas acting for the investors.

AZB & Partners advised Reliance Industries Limited and Jio Platforms Limited, as on previous deals, led by a team of partners Ashwath Rau, Nilanjana Singh and Bharat Budholia, senior associate Gaurav Bansal.

Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP acted for Mubadala, with a team of senior partner Jonathan Stone, counsel Parveet Gandoak and lawyer Inho Kim.

Davis Polk advised Jio.

2020-06-04

Deal value: INR 90.93 Billion / approximately USD 1.2 Billion

Comments

TomTom 26 Jun 2020, 13:36

+27 -1

What's leader or senior leader? Such stupid designations. Do they have monitor, prefect, head boy, head girl, etc too? Its hilarious reading it, every time they report a deal.

JerryMandering 29 Jun 2020, 07:02

+5 -3

Hi buddy - If you really get down to it, all designations are stupid. They are labels and don't mean anything. Not even the term partner. Other firms do stuff like associate, managing associate, senior associate designate, principal associate, principal associate designate, counsel etc. etc.

I'm not saying that labelling positions as leader, senior leader etc. isn't ridiculous, it's just that all the others are equally ridiculous except they have been validated by the wisdom of the masses.

Be more positive generally. Thanks!

Anaya 29 Jun 2020, 19:25

+2 -0

Technically, if someone is "associated" with a firm they would be called "associates". Then you have different tags to show seniority. That's seems logical. A "leader" makes no sense. It would seem like a bunch going camping or trekking with a leader. Also "associate" Designations are generally known world wide and it would be easy to understand who belongs to which level.

A leader would mean someone who leads a group. Then what is a "senior leader"? A leader who leads leaders, or a leader who leads seniors? If a person is a leader, no one else should be leading him right? Or are they like senior citizens? Once a leader reaches 60 he will be known as senior leader? I could go on and on. It really is funny.

What's more funny is that this deal has a office head cum partner, co head cum senior leader, senior associate, partner and leader and then "lawyers". Were the previous designations not lawyers? I think a new joinee might need a months orientation only to understand the designations after which they will go on with BD

Bijnes 26 Jun 2020, 20:03

+12 -0

How is Pratibha a partner, if NDA is a proprietorship?

Feku 27 Jun 2020, 01:06

+15 -2

How is NDA a top tax law firm, if their own lawyers are hired as "employees" and end up paying taxes more than any other law firm associates? Looks like Modi heads NDA. They fool people and the lawyers be like... Kiya hoga toh soch samaj ke kiya hoga! Ya due to ulterior motives or lack of options have to stick there.

Guest 27 Jun 2020, 04:47

+7 -1

That's called being honest. All associates are employees only, no matter what you call them.

Bijnes 27 Jun 2020, 08:14

+4 -1

Well Advocates Act doesn't permit taking active license holder to practice law while being employed so my question is how are these guys able to remain a full service firm if they are employed as that would require a license?
Ghanta honesty!

Lol 28 Jun 2020, 00:04

+1 -0

The point is, the employees of the renowned tax firm with their clever tax structuring that they do for others aren't able to do so for themselves in spite of being legally allowed to do so.

Hexabin 27 Jun 2020, 08:15

+3 -0

Go Jaideep!

Peddler 2 Jul 2020, 22:38

Go where? Please specify

Commenting is closed for this article.