Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The inter-relationship between disputed debts, arbitration agreements and winding up proceedings has come up again this time before the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16. In delivering this important judgment, the Privy Council looked closely at the dividing line between two areas of public policy, namely insolvency and arbitration.

Background

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

In this guide, we explain what to do when you no longer need a company that has been incorporated or registered in the British Virgin Islands (Company). Assuming the Company is solvent, you have two options: (1) arrange for the Company to be voluntarily liquidated and dissolved (Liquidated); or (2) leave (or apply for) the Company to be administratively struck-off and dissolved (Administratively Dissolved). For the reasons set out below, we usually recommend a Company is Liquidated, rather than Administratively Dissolved.

このたび、森・濱田松本法律事務所アジアプラクティスグループでは、東南・南アジ ア各国のリーガルニュースを集めたニュースレター、MHM Asian Legal Insights第160 号（2024 年 2 月号）を作成いたしました。今後の皆様の東南・南アジアにおける業務 展開の一助となれば幸いに存じます。 ※本レターに記載した円建て表記は、ご参照のために、各現地通貨を現在の為替レー トで換算したものとなります。

マレーシアの Income Tax Act 1967 が改正され、2024 年 1 月 1 日より、一定の会社 の株式の譲渡益はキャピタルゲイン課税の対象となりました。改正後も個人による譲渡 については課税対象外とされていますが、会社等の法人による譲渡の場合は一定の課税 が生じます。 2024 年 1 月 1 日からの譲渡益課税の対象となるのは、以下の会社の株式の譲渡益で す。

Introduction

The first stage in any restructuring by way of a scheme of arrangement in the Cayman Islands involves meetings of such classes of creditors or shareholders (as the case may be) to consider, and if thought fit, approve the terms of the scheme. An application to Court is required for orders to be granted for convening such meetings. If, at these meetings, the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied, the second stage involves obtaining Court sanction for the proposed scheme to become effective.

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands all have legislation that enables a company to present a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts.

One of the defining features of a scheme of arrangement carried out under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction is the ability to cram down dissenting creditors or members (or classes of them, as the case may be) if the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied and Court sanction of the proposed scheme is obtained.

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.

Can a debtor reinstate a defaulted loan under a Chapter 11 plan without paying default rate interest? This question was analyzed thoroughly in a recent Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court decision by Judge Philip Bentley.

Does a bondholder have standing to petition for winding up? In the landmark decision of Cithara Global Multi-Strategy SPC v Haimen Zhongnan Investment Development (International) Co.