Parikh: Energetic and boomingParikh: Energetic and booming Verus advised India-based leading global wind-power company and longstanding client Suzlon Energy (Suzlon) in the Rs 160 crore ($40m) sale of its 58 MW wind-farm Suzlon Engitech to an undisclosed purchaser, which was advised by Desai & Diwanji.

Verus partner Jay Parikh acted for Suzlon which is understood to have frequently instructed the firm on its corporate finance matters previously. It is understood that Verus acted for Suzlon in the later stages of this deal.

Parikh and Verus partner Dipankar Bandopahyay's relationship with Suzlon is understood to date back to their association with Bharucha & Partners, when they had acted for the company on its $2.5bn debt restructuring.

Desai & Diwanji partner Monika Deshmukh acted for the purchaser and negotiated and drafted the transaction documents with Suzlon's in-house team.

The all-NUJS start-up Verus, now a-year-and-half into operation, rented bigger offices in Fort, Mumbai and East of Kailash, Delhi, three months after expanding its equity partnership to five.

Parikh told Legally India that the firm shifted into the new space in Mumbai one month ago, while the Delhi space has been functional for around two weeks.

The Mumbai office has 1100 sq ft of space for around 27 professionals, while the Delhi office can accommodate 10 more, in its 1000 sq ft with an option to expand to 2200 sq ft. Both offices house seven lawyers at present, with one more associate level position created in Mumbai.

“Bombay is developing really well,” said Parikh adding that the firm hopes to similarly grow its corporate transactions practice in Delhi.

[Editorial note: This story was edited to hide the identity of the purchaser owing to client confidentiality obligations]

Click to show 19 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 NUJS junior 31 Jul 12, 14:30
Congrats Jay! hope you guys do well...
Reply Report to LI
2
Like +6 Object -0 Unpaid 31 Jul 12, 15:42  interesting
Suzlon has been a "longstanding client" of quite a few (low paid) law firms.
Reply Report to LI
2.1
Like +4 Object -0 Paid 31 Jul 12, 19:00
@unpaid- what a sad, sick, petty thing to say- guess it reflects whats a sad, sick, petty person you are.
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 XYZ 01 Aug 12, 10:49
Unpaid - As the name suggests, must have overbilled and possibly never got paid. Poor Unpaid!!!!!!!
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Longstanding? 31 Jul 12, 17:18
So Suzlon was bought in by Jay and Dipankar who joined Verus three months back? And Suzlon is Verus' longstanding client? Again it appears a case of LI having got the quote wrong.
Reply Report to LI
3.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Prachishrivastava 31 Jul 12, 17:52
Dear reader,

Thank you for your comment but you appear to have made an assumption which is nowhere implicit in the story.

Nowhere have we said that Suzlon was brought in by Jay and Dipankar.

Suzlon instructed Jay and Dipankar while they were at Bharucha and Suzlon had an independent relationship with Verus as well.

We hope this addresses your concern,

Best wishes,
Prachi
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 Girl 31 Jul 12, 19:38
Good show. It is a sign of changing markets to see a young firm across the table from the older and established names. The "low-paid" assumption is false. Even assuming that is true, cost is seldom the only concern driving a client. Cost is not the sole concern even for buying chewing gum leave alone complex legal services.
Reply Report to LI
5
Like +7 Object -0 Confused Zeus Says . . . 01 Aug 12, 11:49  interesting
Cost is not the only factor. No matter how cash rich a client is, every client seeks value for the money he/she/it pays. Sadly, Biglaw firms, more often than not, do not deliver value for money. If you do not negotiate a flat fee with a Biglaw firm, you are doomed. For example, in infrastructure/project finance deals, associates and junior associates who bill in the range of $200 - $250 an hour work on bulk of your matter. They are royal rip offs. These novices are not even worth even one tenth of what they bill. Ironically, the more inefficient they are, the more the client lands up paying.

Even if you negotiate a flat fee arrangement, there is this magical "OPE" (out of pocket expenses) which is not capped. Clients are billed upto Rs. 100 for one single photocopy or printout. Such small ticket items add up to huge amount. I personally am aware of two real scumbag partners of a mid-level firm working on a flat fee deal, who charged one lakh as OPE for a day's visit to a metro. This included Rs. 15,000 towards local travel (airport to hotel and back). It is so apparent that they are being dishonest. Unless these law firms start delivering value for money, the chances are that a client will not return to them.
Reply Report to LI
5.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Not that much confused... 01 Aug 12, 18:02
It would only be fair to also bring to light the fact that many a times law firms are required to repeat the procedure/duplication of work is required simply because certain procedural things ought to have been done by the client company but not done at their end, at all/by due date.
Reply Report to LI
6
Like +6 Object -0 Anon 01 Aug 12, 12:45  interesting
"Verus advised India-based leading global wind-power company and longstanding client Suzlon Energy (Suzlon) in the Rs. 160 crore ($40m) sale of its 58 MW wind-farm Suzlon Engitech to an undisclosed purchaser, which was advised by Desai & Diwanji."

"Desai & Diwanji partner Monika Deshmukh acted for the purchaser and negotiated and drafted the transaction documents with Suzlon's in-house team."

So what exactly did Verus do?
Reply Report to LI
6.1
Like +7 Object -0 ANON 01 Aug 12, 17:32  interesting
Manipulated the site for some free (and undeserving) publicity...
Reply Report to LI
6.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Paid 02 Aug 12, 23:46
Ahh, the stench of Biglaw jealousy...sweet
Reply Report to LI
7
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 XYZ 02 Aug 12, 18:36
So all u guys who are criticizing Verus, what isthe criticism actually for? For being deserving enough to get a client on their merit? The criticism sound more like an effort to be bitchy coz simply can't be/isn't that good!!
Also, as far as manipulating this site for publicity is concerned, bitchy superficial criticism always have and will highlight the fact that someone is genuinely doing well...All the very best Jay.
Reply Report to LI
7.1
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 True 02 Aug 12, 23:27
Absolutely agree. Bitchiness is a running theme on this site, but then again, I think it is a valid to ask what exactly did Verus do if the negotiations and drafting of the documents was done by Suzlon's in house team. What does "acted in the later stages of the deal" entail doing?
Reply Report to LI
8
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 XYZ 03 Aug 12, 13:20
If Verus was hired by the company and paid for it despite the Suzlon in house team working on it, don't you think they must have definitely worked on the deal and quite a bit? Frankly, it is difficult to believe that a company will hire a firm and pay them any amount at all (even if for argument's sake we presume that the payment made was quite less, which I definitely do not think is the case) if they have not worked on the deal.

For people who implied Verus was not paid...all I can say is wild presumptions or deliberate attempts to spin lies shows how much one wuld love to get the wrk themselves but are unable to do so...it happens.

Also, bitchiness is a relative term my friend....as far as I am concerned, criticizing/trashing people who get work on merit or have won confidence of people by work and not coz of family/connections alone, is bitchiness...but these guys have proved themselves first by having slogged on similar deals before at their erstwhile workplaces and now having erstwhile clients instructing them even on "later stages" of a deal. An erstwhile client instructing a new frim but with lawyers with whom they have worked in the past, at later stages of a deal, irrrespective of what they did, in my opinion can only highlight the credibility of the firm in relation to its clinet.
Reply Report to LI
8.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 ZYX 03 Aug 12, 14:01
Hmm.. true.. but what exactly did they do? I am sure there are a gamut of things they could have done, but what was it? It could have been a closing opinion but then surely that does not merit a whole spread article! Why does the article not mention what they did and couch it in some "it is understood" language. No one seems to be answering that million dollar question - what did they do?. Of course, one should not take away from a young firm having big clients such as this and it is truly commendable and deserving of congratulatory messages - no argument there.
Reply Report to LI
9
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 XYZ 03 Aug 12, 15:39
The million dollar question is perhaps not what did they do but to whom do they require to justify what work they did on the transaction...as long as their clients belive that they are capable of attracting and retaining their their erstwihle client's interest depsite veturing out on their own, work will come not just from their older clients even new ones.... and I do not see anybody from the company complaining abt this so called big article so anybody who says that they have not require to justify the basis of such claim, not they.

I agree with you that they have not listed out the work they have done in this transaction in this article but no firm has ever provided a detailed list of the profile of wrk undertaken by it in a transaction in any of such articles. It is a common practice to state that you have worked on the transaction and to provide transaction details.

I am sure the firm believes that if you approach them with any work requirement or ask for their work profile after having read this article (including work undertaken specific to this transaction) they will be in a quite good position to provide satisfactory details of the substantial work done by them in relation to this transaction and a whole lot of others before. If you have work to give them try contacting them personally on the same. They will be happy to oblige.
Reply Report to LI
9.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 grrr 03 Aug 12, 18:02
This is sad. Firm members seem to be adding these comments. No firm may provide a detail list of what work they did cause it is assumed that the entire transaction would be handled by them. If only a part of it has been handled, like giving a CP satisfcation opinion, then surely that should be mentioned. Again, no taking away from the fact that it is commendable that a big client has turned to them even for a small assignment, but to make it sound like this is some cutting edge work done by the young firm which deserves a full story, is kind of misleading.
Reply Report to LI
10
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 Faceoff book 04 Aug 12, 16:26
You know you are doing something worthwhile when people are talking about you. So go Team Verus let the tongues wag!
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.