The Supreme Court of India ('Court') in UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024, has delivered a critical judgment clarifying the legal boundaries between a Deed of Undertaking and a Contract of Guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Act’). The Court's decision underscores that mere commercial nomenclature and internal funding arrangements do not satisfy the rigorous legal requirements of a guarantee.
Factual Background
1. はじめに－中国での再編・リストラと不正調査案件の増加
筆者は上海市に駐在して日中間の様々な案件に日々対応しており、関与案件の分野は多岐にわたるが、その中で近年増加しているのが「現地法人の再編・撤退及びそれに伴うリストラ案件」と、「現地法人における社内不正調査案件」である。こう述べると、「中国の日系企業は続々撤退しているのですね」とか「中国は不正が多くて事業が難しいですね」と感じられるかもしれない。
このような「後ろ向き」の案件が増加しているのは、日系企業を取り巻く事業環境の厳しさを示すものと見られかねないだろうが、実際に企業の方々と協働して現場の対応に取り組む身としては、やや異なった見方をしている。撤退・リストラ案件や不正調査案件の増加には複合的な背景があり、日系企業が中国事業を長期的に持続・発展させるための過渡的で必要なステップとして、より前向きに捉えてよいと感じる。中国事業で問題が生じた場合に、いわゆるチャイナリスクで一括りにするのではなく、より分析的に問題を把握することで解決の方向性が見えてくることは多い。本稿では、撤退・リストラ案件や不正調査案件の最近のトレンドの背景を整理しつつ私見を述べてみたい。
Introduction
The Court of Appeal in Desa Tiasa Sdn Bhd v CME Group Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4345 (“Desa Tiasa“) has clarified an important point of law on the standing of unsecured creditors in judicial management (“JM“) proceedings. It has confirmed that unsecured creditors have no right to intervene or to be heard in an application for a judicial management order (“JMO“), unless such right is expressly provided for by statute or subsidiary legislation.
Dentons Hong Kong LLP secured an important judgment for foreign insolvency practitioners from the Hong Kong Court on 20 January 2026, regarding recognition of office holders in the context of restructuring (as opposed to liquidation/winding-up) of a company, which will potentially have significant implications both in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the common law world.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, examined two (2) important issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The first concerned the parameters governing the admission of a real estate project into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), while the second related to the locus standi of a homebuyers’ association or society seeking to intervene or participate in insolvency proceedings against the developer.
Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code protects purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy sale. The provision promotes finality of bankruptcy court orders approving sales and is intended to maximize the value that a debtor or bankruptcy trustee is able to realize in a sale of bankruptcy estate assets by providing third-party purchasers with certainty that the validity of a bankruptcy sale will not be subject to subsequent challenges.
在 Re Lu Zhonglou[2025] HKCFI 6165 一案中，林泽明聆案官以债权人在申请准许呈请破产令及申请替代送达命令时，未有履行“充分及坦诚披露”的义务为由，撤销破产令并驳回破产呈请。
重要事实与背景
吕先生自约 2010 年起一直是呈请人赌场的长期客户。2021 年 12 月，他签署一份信贷协议，获批可观的博彩信贷，其后新加坡法院就相关欠款作出判决。该判决其后在香港根据外地判决登记制度注册并部分清偿，仍有约 7,080 万港元未偿还。呈请人其后送达法定要求书，并以单方面方式取得准许呈请破产令及替代送达命令；吕先生于 2025 年 4 月被宣告破产，其后以送达存在缺陷及重大不披露为由，申请撤销破产令。
Our specialists explain what director disqualification is, the consequences of it and the Insolvency Service’s investigations into a director’s conduct of an insolvent company.
Company directors have legal duties and responsibilities when dealing with the affairs of a company.
<br>
The High Court has handed down its judgment in a preliminary issues trial in Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors on 19 December 2025, dismissing counterclaims by Shift Global Holdings Ltd (Shift) and Corja Holdings Ltd (Corja) for specific performance of purported share warrant rights, which they had said entitled them to more than 54% of Yodel’s issued share capital in the battle for control of the home delivery company.
On January 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito with a concurrence by Justice Sotomayor in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton and addressed whether vacating a void judgment has a time limit. Prior to the decision, there was an 11-1 circuit split, and the majority view had been that parties were permitted to move to vacate void judgments irrespective of how much time had passed.