インドネシア 執筆者: ジェン・エリザベス・ドノウ、ハンス・アディプトラ・クルニアワン 1. 2023 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号及び 2023 年政令第 20 号：新しい企業結合届出規 則及び手数料 インドネシア企業競争監視委員会(Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha)(以下「KPPU｣という。)は、新しい企業 結合届出規則である 2023 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号(以下「2023 年規則第 3 号｣という。)を公布した。2023 年規則 第 3 号は、従前の企業結合届出規則である 2019 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号(以下「2019 年規則第 3 号｣という。)を廃 止し、これに取って代わるものである。以下に、2023 年規則第 3 号の主な要点を簡単に述べる。 (i) 企業結合届出要件：F2F(Foreign to Foreign)取引における地域関連基準 2023 年規則第 3 号によると、全ての取引当事者がインドネシアにおいて資産又は売上げを有する場合にの み、企業結合届出の義務が生じる。これは、取引当事者の 1 者でもインドネシアに資産又は売上げを有する 場合には企業結合届出義務が生じていた 2019年規則第3号に基づく制度と比べて注目すべき変更である。

Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.

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.

From the West Coast Healthcare Desk is a new ongoing series of Holland & Knight Healthcare Blog articles and alerts focused on healthcare industry developments and points of interest in the West Coast healthcare marketplace. Holland & Knight's nationally ranked healthcare practice has been focused on healthcare compliance, transactional, reimbursement and operational trends that have often started in California before spreading nationwide – managed care and various capitated and quality-based reimbursement models being the most obvious examples.

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

A 2 (two) member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the matter of Consortium of Prudent ARC Ltd. vs. Mr. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors has applied the ratio in the judgment of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Private Limited to hold that the committee of creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited (“CoC”) in its commercial wisdom can allow resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans through the challenge process.

A pre-pack insolvency sale, which is an expedited liquidation proceeding that allow for the sale of all or part of a debtor’s business as a going concern to the best bidder shortly after the insolvency proceedings are opened, is not formally regulated in the Czech Republic.

The Government of Hong Kong continues its push towards favouring digitisation over using hardcopy documents. The new changes to local bankruptcy laws allows: (1) electronic service of statutory demands; (2) using electronic bundles and skeletons for winding-up and bankruptcy applications; and (3) allowing electronic submission of documents to the Official Receiver.

Electronic service of statutory demands: A game changer for creditors and debtors