Beri had joined Citi from GE Capital in 2010, as reported by Legally India.
He graduated as a lawyer from Delhi University in 1983 and obtained an LLM from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1995.
As an LLB graduate he was with Unilver for one year after which he practiced independently until 1992. He joined Sidley Austin Chicago after his LLM in 1995.
After leaving Sidley in 2000 he was the GC of GE Money, GE Commercial Finance and GE Capital and assistant GC at Genpact.
Beri is qualified to practice in India and the US, and specializes in corporate & securities law, M&A, banking & structured finance, private equity, government relations, international transactions with particular focus on India, outsourcing transactions, legal outsourcing, and regulatory compliance.
He currently also offers a course on fundamentals of financial services law at JGLS Sonipat.
Beri was not reachable for comment at the time of going to press.
Picture courtesy: jgls.edu.in
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Best wishes,
Prachi
Here it goes again - Pramod Rao has left Indus and is joining GE. Confirmed news...
Come up with a better excuse this time ;-)
Thank you for your comment but actually Pramod Rao has not resigned from Indus. This is why I hesitated to publish your earlier comment.
My comment deletion apology was directed at someone whose comment actually got deleted in the course of publishing it.
Best wishes,
Prachi
www.legallyindia.com/201306063729/Law-firms/induslaw-pramod-rao-joins-citi#comments
Care for an errata, Prachi?
This story was published on 29 May and u said Rao has not resigned from Indus. On 7 June you carry a story that he has and is joining Citi, as I said above,... res ipsa loquitor
Please allow scope for human error, instead of jumping to conclusions about ethics especially in light of the fact that we have previously shown no shame in accepting our mistakes and published much worse, rather unwarranted rude comments in the past.
Also, thank you for bringing my attention to the error yesterday.
Best wishes,
Prachi
You haven't acknowledged an error publicly, but corrected it. That is reason enough for criticism whether you like it or not. Which journalist will say this is a fine course of action? It was a glaring error to report that Mr. Beri joined Unilever as GC right after graduation. I do not see any acknowledgement of that error, which is certainly improper. Your past conduct is not a defense!
Just so that you know, its a part of journalism to handle criticism even if it is unfair, which, my criticism was not. You are not helping yourself if you are expecting readers to allow scope for error anyway.
All the best for the future!
I also acknowledge in my reply that we made an error to which you brought our attention.
Without going into criticism being fair and unfair, I would certainly clarify where criticism is misplaced. If I accidentally deleted your comment and apologised for it, your criticism of our ethics is misplaced.
Best wishes.
Prachi
Thanks for your feedback but with all due respect, you're being 'a bit of a dick' about this entire thing under the following rules:
www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2011/09/news-websites-comments-golden-rule.php
From what I understand, Prachi accidentally deleted your comment that pointed out a typo / error in the story that said he was a GC after graduating, rather than in-house, which was pretty obviously an error.
Prachi then thanked you for the correction and apologised for accidentally deleting your comment, without specifying what the correction was exactly (though your later comment set out the error again, so it's not as though we were looking to hide it).
Her first comment could arguably have been phrased differently to avoid confusion perhaps, but overall I think it's fine - if there was a fundamental error, we usually acknowledge the correction in the comments or in the main story as a correction (unlike others in this publishing space, from what I can tell).
When we're correcting very obvious typos or errors that are not at the core of the story, particularly if they're caught very quickly after the story is posted such as in this case, sometimes we do acknowledge these in comments, sometimes not, and sometimes readers point out typos and tell us, 'no need to publish my comment, since typos are probably not the main reason that most readers read our comments.
We are grateful to readers pointing out errors in any case.
However, I don't think there are any ethical issues involved in our policy and in this case in particular. Your alleging that this is a grave breach of journalistic ethics and demanding of Prachi to admit this or somesuch, is behaviour that is normally classed as just a little bit trolly.
Assuming your comment has been made in good faith, however, we hope the above answers your query.
Best wishes,
Kian & Prachi
Thanks for publishing my last comment and still not publishing the earlier one. Please consider the following:
1. What reasonable person (and a Magic Circle alumni at that) concludes that mentioning incorrect designation is a typo? A reporter who reports that a fresh law graduate was appointed as the GC has made a factual error. I guess there could be a school of thought / a web link to defend this kind of journalism or to prove that it fits into the description of a typo. Please see the larger picture here, which is incorrect reporting, by whatever name you choose to call it or however you wish to categorize it.
2. Yes, Prachi thanked me and I know she acknowledged that the deletion was by error. That was fine with me. What I objected to was failure to acknowledge the error, which constrained me to set it out. Thank God it was published! I felt it was not appropriate for Prachi to act as if there was nothing wrong in failing to acknowledge the error. I thought that was not fair, but I defer to your knowledge of the rules and ethical code of journalism of which I am not aware.
3. Readers have every right to criticize factual and typographical errors. Editors have no right to bury the comment, especially when they usually publish those comments.
4. Presently, the comment you have buried is not the one that got deleted. It’s the later comment which you refused to publish on the ground that I am being a bit of a dick. You have still not published that comment, which had no offensive language and was only a rebuttal. This is burying free speech by a portal that I like a lot. The fact that you have not published my reply for reasons like “dick” and “trolly” does not leave a good impression. If you felt its trolly, what stopped you from indicating so and publishing it like you usually do? You guys just stopped a reader from expressing a view because you did not like it. From where I see it, you guys may also qualify as the dicks here, no? People comment all sorts of crap that you are able to publish, but when it engages you in a debate you do not like, feel free to label the person a dick and bury the comment!
5. I don’t expect LI to compare itself to others in the publishing space. I am not a fan of those publishers and do not visit their websites. However, The Hindu and Indian Express do a good job in publishing "small" errors when readers write to them.
6. Some readers may say “Hey, no need to publish my comment” but I was not obliged to say so. I said what I felt and without being offensive. Since when was that a reporter’s nightmare?
7. I never alleged anything to be “unethical” after the first comment, did I? Of course, I said I felt it was unfair not to specify the error made. Pardon me if that was wrong according to you but I felt I was within my rights as a reader to submit my views, however incorrect they may be, as along as I did not abuse. You could always respond, or leave it to your readers. Readers can judge what comment means what, unless you assume they are mostly dicks who lack sense.
7. I see an aggressive and impolite streak in you these days and a tendency to lash out at readers! Like in a recent NUJS story in which I actually jumped to defend you, but also mentioned that such lashing did not befit the Kian I know and like.
Sigh. Good old Kian is no more ....
Sadly,
Dick.
The reason Prachi didn't publish the long diatribes, I imagine, is because to everyone else, they are incredibly boring to read and completely off topic and unrelated to the story.
I really don't think that a super-quick correction of an obviously unintentional, relatively minor and ancillary error warrants this level and length of discussion, hence, even if your intentions may be good faith, this debate just comes across as a little superfluous.
Appreciate you want us to be transparent and accountable, and generally we don't shy away from that, but perhaps objectively there are more interesting battles to fight on that front here with us, rather than this one?
If you don't mind, I will move this thread and all your unpublished comments to a forum post and link to it, so it doesn't take up pages and pages of comment thread in a meta LI discussion, of which there are perhaps a few too many these days... :)
Any guess or confirmed info..
USD 2,000,000 p.a.
has to be more.
It cant be 20 lakhs USD
Has to be less.
Agree. However, we get esops and other benefits that are very valuable. So effectively it is between Anon and your figure.
Is the report on your in-house lawyer salary survey ever going to be released ? Even a JPC report would be faster!
Actually Kian is not in office this week, so instead of having a story going through two pairs of eyes, there's one eye on the stories and the other on everything else.
But I have corrected the error now thanks to your eagle eyes!
Best wishes,
Prachi
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first