A guarantor’s rights of subrogation are provided for in Sections 140 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). These rights allow a guarantor to step into the shoes of the creditor, upon fulfilling the debtor’s payment obligations to the creditor. This means that the guarantor assumes all the rights including the security that the creditor enjoyed against the principal debtor.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

BACKGROUND

Since its inception the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has been an evolving legislation with regular updation(s) being brought about in the form of rules and regulations with a view of streamlining the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343

On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.^[1]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Anjani Kumar Prashar v. Manab Datta & Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.

Introduction

Introduction

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。