Tahkim

Yargılama, devletin sahip olduğu ve mahkemeler aracılığıyla kullandığı bir erktir. Bununla beraber, karşılıklı mutabakat kapsamında kişilerin belirli şartlar sağlandığında uyuşmazlıkların çözümünü devletin yargısı yerine hakem adı verilen özel kişilere bırakması mümkündür.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016（2016年インド破産倒産法）は、それまで経済的に実現不可能なオンデマンド処理であった倒産処理のワンストップ・ソリューションとして導入されました。Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにおいて、インド最高裁判所は、同法の憲法上の正当性を支持しつつ、同法は債権者のための単なる回収法ではなく、むしろ企業債務者の再建のためのものであることを強調してきました[i]。Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v.

The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) held its annual International Wealth Structuring Forum in the Cayman Islands on 19 and 20 January 2023 at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. The forum was an opportunity for leading trust and wealth management professionals to gather and discuss the latest local and international developments impacting the industry. Hector Robinson KC and James Anson-Holland of Mourant attended the forum and have summarised the top three takeaways from the panel discussions.

The mercurial modern assets

HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2022 Welcome to our first annual digest, in which we collate our 2022 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place. This edition includes updates from the whole Disputes arena across England, AsiaPac, and the Middle East. HFW is one of the world’s largest and most active disputes practices, litigation is in our DNA. We have more than 350 specialist disputes lawyers in offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and AsiaPac.

In East-West Logistics LLP v Melars Group Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1419 the Court of Appeal once again considered the test for establishing the location of a debtor's centre of main interests (COMI) for the purposes of the Recast Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2015/848. The case was a second appeal considering whether to uphold the dismissal of a winding up order on the grounds that the debtor's COMI was not in the United Kingdom.

These are unprecedented times for businesses trying to manage the challenging impact of inflation, labour shortages, supply interruptions, elections, fires, floods, wars and a pandemic. It is more important than ever to manage working capital, mitigate risk and monetise assets.

In Sian Participation Corp. (In Liquidation) v- Halimeda International Limited BVIHCMAP2021/00171 ("Sian"), the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal again had occasion to consider (amongst a number of other things) the interrelationship between an arbitration clause in a loan agreement and the Court's jurisdiction to appoint liquidators to a company under the Insolvency Act 2003.

Two decisions handed down on the same day – one by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal and the other by the Commercial Division of the High Court – illustrate the approach of British Virgin Islands Courts to applications to appoint liquidators in circumstances where the subject matter of a dispute as to the existence of a debt falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

Introduction

On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its long-awaited decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41(“Peace River”), which addresses the interaction between insolvency law's single proceeding model and arbitration law’s emphasis on contractually bargained-for rights – an interaction often described as “a conflict of near polar extremes”.

In the recent case of Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (Peace River), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) clarified the circumstances in which an otherwise valid arbitration agreement may be held to be inoperative in the context of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA).

BACKGROUND