第１ はじめに
国際契約を中心に、契約書に仲裁条項が設けられることは 珍しくありません。仲裁条項のある契約について紛争が生じた 場合、裁判所ではなく合意された仲裁機関での紛争解決が 試みられます。では、このような仲裁条項のある契約について、 一方当事者が倒産した場合、仲裁条項は引き続き有効でしょ うか。仲裁という当事者間の合意を重視する手続と、倒産とい う強行法規的に一律かつ集団的な調整を行う手続とは、相 互に相反するようにも見受けられます。仲裁と倒産の関係につ いては、国際的にも大きな議論があるところですが、以下で は、仲裁条項のある契約につき、海外の契約相手が破産した 場面を想定して、基本的な考え方を概観したいと思います。
第２ 仲裁合意は破産管財人を拘束するか
一般的な仲裁条項は、例えば、以下のような条項であり、契 約に関するあらゆる紛争は、合意された仲裁条項に基づき、 合意された仲裁機関（下記の例では、シンガポール国際仲裁 センター）で仲裁により最終解決されます。
In the recent decision in N.Chanthiran a/l Nagappan v Kao Che Jen [2023] 5 MLRA 247, the Federal Court had the occasion to put to rest, the question of whether leave of court is required for the commencement of proceedings against a court appointed liquidator. In this regard, the Federal Court clarified that leave of court is indeed required.
Brief Facts
Although a non-insolvency case the recent case of PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (“PACCAR”) has caused waves in the litigation market (including insolvency litigation market) following the Supreme Court finding that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where funders recover a percentage of the amount awarded to a claimant are damaged based agreements (DBAs) – which- unless the LFA complied with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regs”) means that they are unenforceable.
My colleague Alex Chan and I had the privilege of participating in an interactive webinar hosted by the The Hon Edmund Wong, a member of the Legislative Council and the representative of the accountancy functional constituency. The webinar provided a valuable platform for professionals in the industry to delve into the significance of corporate restructuring and insolvency within the realm of accounting.
The Bulgarian government has introduced a new form of insolvency regime directed at merchants effective from 1 July 2023. In this new framework, a merchant is distinctly defined as an individual involved in business or practising a craft or a liberal profession. The criterion for the classification is the nature and scale of the operations, which should not necessitate conducting activities in a purely commercial manner.
As expected, the scope of directors' duties whilst a company is in financial difficulties has been the source of further consideration by the Court. The recent case of Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 raised the question as to whether, following the Supreme Court decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA, a director's duty to take into account the interests of creditors arises where the company is at the relevant time insolvent if a disputed liability comes to fruition.
Over the past year, digital asset investors have become acutely aware of asset custody and counterparty credit risks due to the high-profile bankruptcies of Voyager, Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX. These investors have found that, at times, their assets may be stuck in a bankruptcy proceeding for years. However, these investors—now bankruptcy claim holders—have options for more immediate liquidity.
Litigation between Mr and Mrs Brake, Axnoller Events Ltd and various other parties has been the subject of a significant number of judgments covering a wide range of legal issues. The underlying facts are convoluted but can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 as follows.
The Galapagos Group has secured comprehensive affirmation of its 2019 debt restructuring (the “Restructuring”) from the English High Court. This decision is a significant step towards resolution of the highly contested restructuring, and provides market participants with further clarity and certainty when it comes to implementing lender-led transactions in future.
This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.