It is being reported that the Latvian State Security Service (the VDD) has discontinued a criminal investigation started in November 2023 into the sale of a helicopter by a company indirectly co-owned by the designated person Petr Aven .

More than 75% of the U.S. population lives in states that have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use.

Pursuant to a 2022 directive from President Joe Biden, a 2023 recommendation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a scientific review released in January supporting the HHS's recommendation, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is now evaluating whether to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.

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。

In contrast with a majority of bankruptcy courts that routinely dismiss cannabis-related cases for perceived violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California in the recent opinionIn re Hacienda, No. 2:22-BK-15163-NB, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023), refused to conform to the same historical standard. Instead, the Bankruptcy Court struck down the U.S. trustee’s motion to dismiss not once but twice in favor of confirming a marijuana business’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Background

スタートアップ（ベンチャー企業）において重要なエクイティ・インセンティブであ るストックオプション（SO）のうち、税制適格 SO の要件の一つとして、1 株当たりの 権利行使価額として、その新株予約権に係る契約（付与（割当）契約）を締結した時に おける発行会社の 1 株当たりの価額に相当する金額（時価）以上であることが必要とさ れています2。この点につき、従前、種類株式（優先株式）を発行しているスタートアッ プが、普通株式を目的とする税制適格 SO を発行する際の普通株式の 1 株当たりの価額 に相当する金額（時価）の算定ルールが明確ではありませんでした。

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) (Re Avanti), the court considered the nature of fixed and floating charges. Whether a charge is fixed or floating has implications for both lenders and administrators in terms of determining to what extent a chargor can recover from the charged assets and to what extent a borrower can deal with its assets.

Background of case:

In MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code―which limits the effect of certain appeals on orders authorizing the sale or lease of bankruptcy estate property―is a jurisdictional provision.

With the passage of several years since the outbreak of COVID-19 and additional external factors such as the soaring prices of various goods and services and the sharp depreciation of the Japanese yen, companies' financial conditions have deteriorated, while others are considering filing for restructuring proceedings, which is why the reduction of excessive debt has become a major issue as of late.

In an increasing number of restructuring cases of globally-operating companies, companies or funds outside Japan are becoming strong sponsor candidates, and even more foreign players are expected to be actively selected as sponsor candidates in the future.

In this article, we focus on the sponsor selection process in out-of-court restructurings and legal insolvency procedures in Japan, based on recent actual cases.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.