The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Key Developments
1. Delhi High Court pierces the corporate veil to make non-parties to an arbitration liable for the arbitral award
戦略的提携・拠点開設のお知らせ クアラルンプール 1 アジアでのさらなる体制強化のため、2023 年 1 月より WM Leong & Co と当事務所のシンガポール拠点である Nishimura & Asahi (Singapore) LLP が、マレーシア業務に関して戦略的提携を行っております。 WM Leong & Co は、マレーシア法において豊富な知識・経験を有するワンメイ・リョン マレーシア弁護士が代表を 務めるマレーシアの独立した法律事務所です。WM Leong & Co との戦略的提携の下で、マレーシアが関わるクロ スボーダー案件について豊富な経験を有する眞榮城大介弁護士および当事務所シンガポール事務所所属の弁 護士が中心となり WM Leong & Co と緊密に連携しながらクライアントのマレーシア事業の拡大および現地ビジネ スのサポートを行ってまいります。2 札幌 2023 年 4 月に札幌事務所を開設しております。道内企業での執務経験を有し、コーポレート・M&A・エネルギーの 分野ならびに海外案件支援に強みを持つ坪野未来弁護士が所属しており、身近なところでご相談をいただきなが ら、きめの細かいアドバイスを提供いたします。
Indonesia Authors: Miriam Andreta and Hans Adiputra Kurniawan 1. Bankruptcy and Liquidation: Updates Brought by PPSK Law With respect to bankruptcy and liquidation of certain parties (public listed companies, banks, non-bank financial institutions), there are certain updates and clarifications set out in Law on Development and Improvement of Financial Sector (also known by its local abbreviation “PPSK Law”) - which came into effect on 12 January 2023 (except for certain provisions that are explicitly intended to take effect otherwise).
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Key Developments
1. SEBI prescribes new disclosure requirements and dos and don’ts for the issue of green debt securities
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
These FAQs delve into some key aspects that prospective resolution applicants must consider while devising a robust resolution plan for a corporate debtor.
The appeal challenged an order (“Impugned Order“) passed by the Delhi High Court in a writ petition (“Writ“) filed by Singer. Vide the Impugned Order, the Division Bench of the High Court had referred the Writ to a larger bench as it doubted the correctness of the judgment in Continental Carbon India Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2012 (131) DRJ 291 (DB) (“Modi Rubber”).
Introduction
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).
The extant regulatory framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (“ARCs”) has been amended by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), vide its notification titled ‘Review of Regulatory Framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)’ dated 11th October 2022 (“Framework”).
Key Changes:
Some of the key changes brought about by the Framework are as follows:
While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), is clearly provided for in the IBC, the interest component in the case of operational debt has always been a point of contention.