Kingsley Napley is pleased to report the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE in the case of Re MPB Developments Ltd [2025], which represents an excellent result for our client.

We act for the petitioners in long running litigation. Two years ago, our clients presented a creditors’ winding up petition, together with a contributory’s winding up petition on the just and equitable basis and an unfair prejudice petition.

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and othersv Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18, which clarifies the parties who ar

1 2 Capital Market 9 Dispute Resolution 14 Fintech 19 Media and Entertainment 24 RERA 27 Sports and Gaming 39 White Collar Crime 03 Competition Law 11 Employment Law 17 International Trade/ WTO 19 MCA 25 Restructuring and Insolvency 34 Technology 40 3 EXTENSION OF TIMELINE FOR FORMULATION OF IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS PERTAINING TO SEBI CIRCULAR ON “SAFER PARTICIPATION OF RETAIL INVESTORS IN ALGORITHMIC TRADING”1 Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued a circular “Safer participation of retail investors in algorithmic trading” dated February 04, 2025, which aimed at ensuring safer

On April 16, 2025, a 3 (three) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Shitanshu Bipin Vora vs. Shree Hari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. held that clauses of unilateral interest in invoices without a formal agreement, cannot inflate claims of operational debt to meet the threshold of INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees one crore) under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Facts of the Case

Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER SERIES APRIL, 2025 | VOL. XXIII VAISH ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES LEGALAXY WWW.VAISHLAW.COM LEGAL MAXIM Inter alia: “Among other things” MONTHLY NEWSLETTER SERIES APRIL, 2025 | VOL.

Directors beware!

在当前的经济条件下，在开曼群岛（“开曼”）或英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）注册成立的离岸公司（包括作为投资基金开展业务的公司）的股东越来越多地被迫考虑，在董事对公司事务管理不善负有责任时，其对该等董事所享有的权利。尤其是，小股东特别希望了解是否有救济措施，使其能够克服“违法者控制”的局面。换言之，通常董事会的组成和管理是由大股东控制的。在本篇文章中，我们简要介绍了在开曼和BVI两个司法管辖区，董事所承担的职责以及股东可获得的救济措施。

董事职责的范围是什么？

开曼群岛

开曼公司董事的职责规定在普通法中，包括：(i)以公司的最佳利益善意行事的职责；(ii)为适当目的行使其权力的职责（而不得为未授权的目的行使其权力）；以及(iii)不得牟取秘密利润的职责。

英属维尔京群岛

介绍

2004 年英属维尔京群岛商业公司法（「BCA」）修正案于2023 年1 月1 日生效，改变了英属维尔京群岛（「BVI」）公司除名、解散以及随后恢复到公司注册处的情况（「登记」）。本简报回顾了目前的情况，旨在为恢复过程提供一些实用的见解。提及 BCA 时指的是经修订的 2004 年 BVI 商业公司法。

2023 年1 月1 日之前被取消和解散的公司