Trusted by Top Brands
  • Accenture
  • Axis Capital
  • Hem Securities
  • Interactive Financial Service Ltd
  • JM Financial
  • Motilal Oswal
  • Uniqus
  • Art
  • Build
  • HP
  • Signzy
  • Surepass
  • TCS
  • Traqcheck
  • Amazon.in
  • Blackpeak
  • Cigaer
  • Ds Group
  • Exiger
  • Fiat
  • Kroll
  • Mondelez
  • NCI
  • Rubix
  • Tata Power
  • Tata Power DDL
  • Viotal Informatics

Why IPO and SME IPO Transactions Need Litigation Intelligence

Regulatory Weight of DRHP

The Outstanding Litigation section of a Draft Red Herring Prospectus carries real regulatory weight, and it depends on data that is genuinely difficult to assemble.

Manual Workflow Gaps

Litigation schedules are still frequently built through manual court searches, spreadsheet tracking, and promoter/director mapping done case by case. Materiality assessments require judgment. Identity mismatches, a promoter with a common name, a director listed under a slightly different spelling, can quietly produce an incomplete Draft Red Herring Prospectus disclosure.

Scrutiny and Tight Timelines

Add regulatory scrutiny and tight filing timelines, and the result is disclosure delays and significant manual legal effort at exactly the point in an IPO, SME IPO where accuracy matters most.

Where Outstanding Litigation Risk Gets Missed

Cross-jurisdiction identity resolution and court search coverage

Identity Resolution and Cross-Jurisdiction Coverage

Name variations, address mismatches, and inconsistent lower court coverage make cross-jurisdiction searches genuinely hard to complete manually. A case filed against a promoter in a district court outside the primary search jurisdiction can be missed entirely.

Cross-jurisdiction identity resolution and court search coverage

Director Litigation and Promoter Mapping Gaps

Director litigation tied to other group entities, not just the issuer itself  is one of the most commonly missed categories in manual schedules, since it requires mapping relationships across multiple companies rather than searching one entity at a time. Without standardized severity scoring, reviewers also have no consistent way to judge which findings are material enough to warrant escalation.

These gaps don't just slow down drafting, they increase regulatory and transaction risk at the exact moment a Draft Red Herring Prospectus is under the most scrutiny.

How LIBIL® Supports Draft Red Herring Prospectus Disclosures

Category-Wise Schedules

The LIBIL® IPO Report organizes findings into category-wise litigation schedules, civil, criminal, regulatory, so legal teams can prioritize what needs deeper review before it goes into the Draft Red Herring Prospectus.

Lawyer Verification and Source Traceability

AI-powered discovery surfaces the full case landscape across court and FIR records; legal professionals then verify findings, mapping promoter, director, and group-entity relationships and linking every entry back to its source. The report is built to support legal professionals during IPO due diligence, not to replace their judgment.

What's Inside

Key Capabilities

01
Capability

Promoter/director/entity mapping

What It Does

Links litigation across group entities and individuals

02
Capability

Category-wise case tables

What It Does

Organizes findings by civil, criminal, regulatory type

03
Capability

Court & district lists

What It Does

Documents every court referenced, including lower courts

04
Capability

Lawyer verification

What It Does

Legal professionals manually review AI-surfaced findings

05
Capability

Identity resolution

What It Does

Matches subjects across name and address variations

Cross-jurisdiction identity resolution and court search coverage

What's in the IPO Report

Each IPO Report includes category-wise litigation schedules covering civil, criminal, and regulatory case tables, with case numbers and applicable acts and sections cited for each entry. 

Severity scores, court lists, and district court lists accompany full promoter and director mapping, delivered in disclosure-support formatting alongside a formal disclaimer.

This structure is built to accelerate preparation of the Outstanding Litigation section specifically, legal teams receive a reviewable starting with an excel output generated via user portal.

Who needs the IPO Report

Merchant Banking

teams use the report to standardize litigation disclosure quality across multiple concurrent mandates.

Law Firm

gives issuer counsel a lawyer-verified starting point rather than building a schedule from scratch.

Press & Recognitions

Trusted by the top names in the industry

  • It helped to find out relevant cases with just One Click

    "Legitquest seems to be a one of its kind Legal Research engine with features like iDRAF and iGraphics. It helped me find out relevant cases with just One Click to reach to the reasoning and decision of the case. A feature like iDRAF has helped me save a lot of time while analysing a case."

  • Transform and revolutionise the way of legal research.

    "Legitquest is sure to transform and revolutionise the way Judges, Attorneys, law students, professors, researchers and scholars do legal research."

  • Search engine reduces the time taken in legal research

    "I am very impressed by your search engine, as it is unique in the sense that it greatly reduces the time taken in legal research by straightaway leading to the main findings/ observations of a judgment, including issues raised therein etc. I hope that you include all state electricity regulatory commissions as well, since presently no search engine is maintaining a database of its case laws, and regulations."

Get In Touch

Streamline Your Next IPO Litigation Diligence

Monitor hearings, orders, judgments, and case status changes across your entire litigation portfolio from one centralized dashboard, without manually checking multiple court websites.

Book a personalized demo to see how Patrol® helps legal teams automate court case tracking and gain real-time visibility across every matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Category-wise litigation schedules (civil, criminal, regulatory), severity scores, court and district court lists, promoter/director mapping, case numbers, applicable acts and sections, and a formal disclaimer.

AI-powered discovery surfaces candidate litigation records, and legal professionals then manually verify.

Yes. The IPO Report is structured specifically to support preparation of the Outstanding Litigation section of a Draft Red Herring Prospectus and Red Herring Prospectus, subject to final review by qualified legal counsel.

No. The IPO Report is decision-support litigation intelligence that supports issuer counsel and merchant bankers; it does not replace legal advice or independent legal judgment.

Severity scores (1–5) reflect case materiality based on case type, status, and related factors, giving reviewers a consistent starting point for prioritization.

Yes. Promoter and director mapping extends across group entities, not just the issuer, to surface director litigation tied to other companies.

Coverage spans the Supreme Court, High Courts, district courts, and major tribunals, with court and district lists included in every report for verification.

The IPO Report is a Lawyer-Verified Report configured specifically for Draft Red Herring Prospectus and capital markets disclosure use, with case numbers, applicable acts and sections, and disclosure-support formatting tailored to DRHP/RHP requirements.

As a structured starting schedule for the Outstanding Litigation section legal counsel should review, confirm materiality judgments, and finalize all disclosure language before filing.