We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Also, why would strategic investor such as Qualcomm, Google, and Facebook invest at the same term as Vista and Silver Lake doesn't really make sense?
Also, AZB acted for Jio in EVERY round. If we’re counting.
And I also don’t buy the argument of this being a ‘normal practice’. Pick up any co investment deal - 8/10 deals will have diff law firms representing unrelated co investors. And this is logical - each set of investor would like to protect its own interests. No doubt there will be protracted negotiations when different law firms come on board - but these negotiations are fundamental to protect the interests of the client
Not to take anything away from AZB's market standing, but this is how the process works.