bankers quoted 150!!!! now thats interesting news. Seems like this tender system is really going to bring down the overpriced legal services as even private players will be attracted to follow the same system now.

Kian, you need to refrain from putting up law firms fee quotes. These are in line with a firm’s strategy and I do not think this is appreciated.

hello - the quotes should come out in the open... it is a refreshing change - there should be transparency. the associates should know whats is happening. of course the 'owners' will cringe when sunlight falls where it should not...

way to go Kian.

2 looks like a partner who wants to keep the quotes under wraps!

Not the type of headline you see very often.

Kian, if LI has credible info' regarding the winning quote, by all means go ahead and let everyone know. That's part of your job!

See what US Treasury Deptt did with Goldman's quote: economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/Goldman-loses-out-in-GM-IPO-spoils-the-party-for-rivals/articleshow/6322692.cms

Guys! You need to realize that these are government tenders and what a PSU is paying in lawyer fees or for any other thing should be there in public domain.

Even if its part of a law firm's strategy not to reveal what kind of money they're making on a deal, you cannot stop the client to disclose that information. If tomorrow you hire someone and decide to do a "tell-all", whats wrong in that?

As long as the figures are correct and have come from a verifiable source, there shouldn't be issues with publishing them.

Well @6 is spot on. I believe the fees' details can also be obtained by way of an application under the Right to Information Act. Thanks

To correct the above thread, the basic difference between an application under the Right to Information Act and this forum is that the information in that regard would be provided, if deemed apposite to the applicant, while this is public dissemination. Anyhow, while I disagree with the logic of arriving at the conclusion, I agree with the proposition that fee quotes should be made publicly available.

I think however, some folks have taken a minor aspect of this article and have missed the bigger picture here. The fact that under-cutting firms are ruining the market for PSU offerings. If you look at any request for proposal, there is a technical qualifier followed by a financial bidding process. There is hardly any question as to the top contenders technically being Amarchand Mangaldas and Luthra and Luthra (considering technical qualification is primarily based on experience and infrastructure), however, the technical qualifications are as low as a minimum of one transaction of a minimum value (say Rs. X crore). Therefore, firms like Fox Mandal Little, which have completed only one such transaction qualify along with the bigwigs, and then it's just a matter of money, is it not?

This system is absolutely flawed, because the reason why smaller firms can charge this little is primarily because they don't have enough dedicated capital markets professionals (hence, manpower expenses lower. Know what else is lower? Quality, not because I'm suggesting they are any less intelligent than any other firm, but because capital markets practice IS labor intensive). What the system should be like is cumulative, meaning points being ascribed for technical qualification being added to point-based weightage for fees charged, and appointment of law firms with the highest score.

Another way of doing it would be to have a cap price on the fees, and have financial qualification first, i.e., the Department of Disinvestment setting a confidential maximum fees that they are willing to pay, and all bids below such amount qualifying, and thereafter, appointment of whoever has the highest points on technical qualification (which would be my ideal method).

The problem with the existing system is that it is absurdly unfair, in the sense that it can be likened to 3 students, A, B and C having to give a two-stage examination, for instance the I.A.S. examinations. In the preliminary examinations, A gets 90%, B gets 88% and C gets 51%, with 50 being the passing score. Thereafter, for the main examination, A and B get 70% each, while C gets 75%, and on such basis C is accepted, while A and B are not. The aggregate percentage for A, B and C would be 80%, 79% and 63% respectively, and would still win.

I think it's ridiculous that anyone, law firm or otherwise should be able to capitalize on their own, for lack of a better word, "cheapness", at least within the same economy, for the same CLIENTELE and under the same circumstances as its competitors.

It was a pain to go through the pointless comment by #8. Anyways, this discussion is useless. Disinvestment deals are done for the league table points - they can never be a revenue generating business. Law firms/investment banks who are under an impression otherwise have ****ed it up big time. Concentrate on the big deals, bid as low as can be to cover "costs" is the model. Petrobras IPO in Brazil paid 0.24% as fee to the underwriters (for everything including selling ADRs in US) - irrespective of the fact that this was a huge deal and this figure itself would be a huge one, the point should carry through.

Totally agree with #8. Good point made.