A law firm pro has penned a response to the controversial Ramblings of a GC column from last week. Read it first, if you haven’t yet, before you proceed.
‘Healthy detachment’ you say? I thought that was quite the rant that indicates a fair degree of resentment.
But I won’t make it personal. Neither is this an in-house versus law firm debate.
The two operate in entirely different realms. They don’t even compete with each other, but rather serve each other’s purpose.
I would like to refute some of the claims made in the last post and to provide clarity to many a confused associate who may wrongly suffer from similar ‘all is lost’ delusions.
Precedential preference
On using a precedent, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. These transactions emerged from the West and are filled with US concepts; it is only natural that foreign law firms have better precedents. They’ve been at this far longer.
Where we Indian law firms come in is to assist funds / entrepreneurs on how these rights work in the Indian context. And also how these rights, which are taken for granted in the US or other countries, will require quite a fight.
We fight this fight for our clients.
Furthermore, the implications of many rights are yet to be tested. From drag rights to liquidation preference, and even indemnities!
Right now we’re all just trying to get with the program and best safeguard our client’s interests. So it does take more than a few iterations.
Rue diligence
On diligences, how many deals fall through because of compliance issues that come up in the legal diligence? In my experience, not many.
A law firm pro has penned a response to the controversial Ramblings of a GC column from last week. Read it first, if you haven’t yet, before you proceed.
‘Healthy detachment’ you say? I thought that was quite the rant that indicates a fair degree of resentment.
But I won’t make it personal. Neither is this an in-house versus law firm debate.
The two operate in entirely different realms. They don’t even compete with each other, but rather serve each other’s purpose.
I would like to refute some of the claims made in the last post and to provide clarity to many a confused associate who may wrongly suffer from similar ‘all is lost’ delusions.
Precedential preference
On using a precedent, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. These transactions emerged from the West and are filled with US concepts; it is only natural that foreign law firms have better precedents. They’ve been at this far longer.
Where we Indian law firms come in is to assist funds / entrepreneurs on how these rights work in the Indian context. And also how these rights, which are taken for granted in the US or other countries, will require quite a fight.
We fight this fight for our clients.
Furthermore, the implications of many rights are yet to be tested. From drag rights to liquidation preference, and even indemnities!
Right now we’re all just trying to get with the program and best safeguard our client’s interests. So it does take more than a few iterations.
Rue diligence
On diligences, how many deals fall through because of compliance issues that come up in the legal diligence? In my experience, not many.
