Trilegal, Amarchand sell Morgan Stanley India arm to StanChart for $8m

Tuesday, 28 May 2013 By Legally India Corporate M&A

Trilegal advised British multinational bank Standard Chartered in buying out US investment bank Morgan Stanley’s Indian private wealth management unit. Morgan Stanley was advised by Amarchand Mangaldas.

Trilegal partner Nishant Parikh, counsels Gautam Singh and Rahul Singh and associate Arjun Sharma acted for Standard Chartered. Mint reported that it will initially pay $8m (Rs 45 crore) for the Indian unit which has around $800m assets under management.

India is the third largest market in the world for Standard Chartered, according to the paper.

Amarchand Mangaldas Mumbai managing partner Cyril Shroff with partner Ipsita Dutta acted for Morgan Stanley which, Fox Business wrote had started the wealth management business in India in September 2008 when the stock markets were booming.

Picture credits: Marfis75

Trilegal Amarchand Mangaldas

Comments

Guest 28 May 2013, 12:58

+2 -1

I think the associate's name is Gautam Chawla (Trilegal).

Prachishrivastava 28 May 2013, 13:18

+1 -0

Hi,

Gautam Chawla is actually part of the competition team at Trilegal, whereas Gautam Singh is in Nishant's team.

Best wishes,
Prachi

Guest 28 May 2013, 13:13

+4 -1

Joke of a headline! This seems to be a under $10 million deal....put up as a billion $ deal. Now deal reportings will be based on revenues and AUMs!!! New low in LI reporting

Prachishrivastava 28 May 2013, 13:20

+1 -1

Hi,

Thank you for your comment but our deal reporting, as has been explained by Kian before, is not based just on revenues. If that were the case we wouldn't be often reporting smaller transactions done by start-ups.

So there are other factors involved in making that editorial choice.

Best wishes,
Prachi

clar 29 May 2013, 02:35

+1 -0

I dont think Guest was commenting on the noteworthiness of the deal - certainly you should report deals and deal value is not the only consideration. I think the comment was more directed towards the headline which makes it appear that the deal was worth 800 million when it clearly isnt.

Its the rediff strategy of giving a headline just to get someone to click and then reading the story makes it evident that its not as controversial as the headline made it out to be. So Prachi, the feedback is dont give misleading headlines. By all means, please report these kind of deals but do not try and mislead.

Guest 28 May 2013, 13:21

+2 -0

Nice deal and swift reporting but headline seems to suggest that deal value is $800m!

Prachishrivastava 29 May 2013, 03:25

+0 -1

Dear all,

Thank you for your feedback.

We have now changed the headline to reflect the deal value also.

Best wishes,
Prachi

Not Quite 29 May 2013, 05:58

+4 -0

Sorry, Prachi, but I don't think the change you have effected works either. It goes the other extreme, in my view....and makes the deal look like a massive distress sale......you know..."assets worth $800 mil sold for $8 mil", which makes Morgan Stanley look REAL BAD when it shouldn't :-)

My suggestion would be to not mention the AUM value at all in the headline. It would still be a very catchy and interesting headline if it said "....sale of Morgan Stanley's India arm to StanChart". Cheers!

Promos at AMSS 29 May 2013, 05:14

+0 -0

Kian/Prachi, any news of the AMSS promotions? Arent they late this year?

Prachishrivastava 29 May 2013, 05:50

+0 -0

Yes they are! We hear they are not expected before June end or July.

Best wishes,
Prachi

Financial Inst. M&A Lawyer 29 May 2013, 11:53

+0 -2

In the context of valuing a private banking or wealth management business AuM is an imperative determinator, categorising the business as valued equivalent to its AuM is not correct. Headlines should reflect what is correct. Should be more like "Trilegal, Amarchand assist sale of Morgan Stanley’s Indian private wealth management unit with $800m in AuM to Stan Chart".

abc 29 May 2013, 12:48

+4 -1

haha - I know we are all lawyers but this is a bit much. Relax, take it easy - its just a headline, not a definition in a transaction document.

Prachishrivastava 29 May 2013, 12:09

+1 -1

Dear "4.1" and "7"

Your feedback was valuable and has been taken on board.

However, it is also a news editor's job to make condensed, catchy headlines. I think there is a difference between them being misleading and them being only indicative.

Best wishes,
Prachi

green lantern 29 May 2013, 15:17

+0 -1

more importantly, why did something worth 800 million sell for 8. hope it wasn't a typo in the documents of the firms. The article reads "will initially pay" 8 mill so there may be more tranches ahead?

Not Quite 30 May 2013, 03:16

+2 -0

Prachi....this is the commenter from 4.1. Now, do you see what I meant there? This is EXACTLY how this headline can grossly mislead readers (like green lantern here) into thinking that this was a massive distress sale. That is why a headline, even if it is "not a definition in a transaction document", needs to be accurate. I appreciate your need for condensed and catchy headlines, but as I pointed out in my earlier comment, a headline that says Morgan Stanley sold its Indian arm to StanChart is attention grabbing enough even without your having to write numbers in the headline itself.

sam 30 May 2013, 02:41

+0 -1

I agree with 4.1 and 7. This new headline actually does sound like a distressed sale. I opened this article purely to see why the distress sale.

Scooter 30 May 2013, 06:41

+4 -0

I know we must read the full article, but for those who don't, or for those who don't know what amarchand/trilegal is, doesnt the header suggest Tri+AM to be the owners of the assets?

Commenting is closed for this article.