Legal Developments – Legal Developments

WHAT ARE “OPTIONS” AND THE POSSIBLE TYPES OF OPTION CONTRACTS?

In the business world, as well as in everyday life, there are options and opportunities. If in life options and choices are dependent on various coincidences and they coincide with human actions, then in the business world options to choose can also be strengthened contractually by closing options contracts.

PRIVATE DAMAGES CLAIMS AS A RESULT OF CARTELIZED PROCUREMENT IN LATVIA

Is it simply enough for the claimant to rely on the decision of the Competition Council? The construction cartel saga has thoroughly disturbed the calm waters of private damages claims in Latvia, in which the EU Damages Directive has so far been relatively unused in practice. However, since public purchasers have been receiving letters from …

Continue reading “PRIVATE DAMAGES CLAIMS AS A RESULT OF CARTELIZED PROCUREMENT IN LATVIA”

AMENDMENTS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF A COLLATERAL AGENT UNDER LATVIAN LAW

Those arranging bond issuances in Latvia often have practical questions about the regulation of a collateral agent’s functions. Until 12 July 2024, this was a very complex question with several possible answers.

THE RISK OF AN UNDEFINED SALARY FOR A BOARD MEMBER IN LATVIA

Under the respective provision of the Commercial Law (Article 221) in Latvia, it is stated and conﬁrmed by the Senate (see case No. C33594518, SKC-71/2022) that a board member has the right to remuneration corresponding to their duties and the ﬁnancial condition of the company.

FAMILY OF TRADEMARKS

In March this year, the ﬁnal ruling in the almost eight-year long trademark dispute between Air Baltic Corporation AS and SIA Baltic Taxi, over the trademarks Baltic Taxi[1], entered into force. The Latvian Supreme Court’s judgement in this case expressed several important conclusions which are likely to be cited in future trademark disputes.[2] Among others, …

Continue reading “FAMILY OF TRADEMARKS”

EMOJIS: CAN THEY CREATE BINDING LEGAL CONTRACTS IN LATVIA

On 8 June 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a supplier’s claim for debt collection from the buyer for the supply of linseed was justiﬁed due to the fact that the buyer had agreed to the terms of the contract by sending the supplier a “👍” or raised thumb emoji (see KING’S BENCH …

Continue reading “EMOJIS: CAN THEY CREATE BINDING LEGAL CONTRACTS IN LATVIA”

SHOULD A TRADEMARK OWNER FORMALLY REACT TO A SIMILAR BRAND CIRCULATING IN LATVIA?

Traditionally, companies, for one reason or another, seek to avoid litigation as much as possible. This is totally understandable, litigation is time and resource consuming and for the most part, unpredictable. In this regard, to date, there has been no very active litigation practice before the Latvian courts concerning conﬂicting trademarks.

Investments in Crypto Assets in Latvian Limited Liability Companies

Analysis: Companies registered in Latvia will be able to use crypto assets to pay for their share capital During the end of 2024, the Latvian government introduced amendments to the Commercial Law, specifically permitting the use of crypto assets as contributions in kind to the share capital of a limited liability company (SIA). These latest …

Continue reading “Investments in Crypto Assets in Latvian Limited Liability Companies”

How to prove the use of a Trade Mark? Valuable Guidance from the Supreme Court Judgment

With the registration of a trade mark, its owner acquires not only exclusive rights against third parties but also the obligation to commence the use of the trade mark no later than within 5 years.

Recognition Without Reciprocity – Why Indian Insolvency Law Must Catch UpIntroduction Today, the world has become a global village, at least in the economic sense. In this increasingly interconnected global economy, corporate distress rarely respects national borders. It is not unknown that every country has multinational enterprises that are operating across various jurisdictions, which inevitably requires that there should be an insolvency regime that cooperates internationally so that there can be preservation of the value of the assets and at the same time there is equitable treatment of the creditor, thereby leading to efficient resolution of cross-border insolvency. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) revitalized the domestic insolvency resolution as soon as it was brought into action. Prior to the IBC, the condition of the distressed entities was not so good because there was no consolidated law, but after the arrival of the IBC regime, the resolution process streamlined the insolvency process. While IBC has been appreciated for revitalizing domestic insolvency resolution, it remains silent on a formal mechanism to recognize and cooperate with foreign insolvency proceedings. This lacuna leaves Indian resolution professionals and foreign stakeholders in a precarious position: India benefits from having its Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (“CIRPs”) recognized abroad, such as in the recent decision in Singapore in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd. decision. Yet India itself offers no reciprocal framework to foreign proceedings. Current Legal Framework in India The IBC provides a regime for insolvency and bankruptcy of companies, limited liability partnerships, and individuals. It has the main objective of first doing resolution and then liquidation in the domestic proceedings to preserve the value of the assets and balance the interests of all stakeholders while providing a time-bound framework for resolving insolvency cases. However, it incorporates only two provisions addressing cross-border insolvency in a limited, reciprocal manner: Section 234 -Agreements with foreign countries. “(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for enforcing the provisions of this Code. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of provisions of this Code in relation to assets or property of corporate debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, as the case may be, situated at any place in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangements have been made, shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified.” As per this section, the Indian government can make a bilateral treaty with any other country to help enforce the rules of the IBC in that country. Once such an agreement exists, the government can officially notify that the IBC provisions will apply to the assets of the Indian companies or individuals, which includes debtors or guarantors that are located in that foreign country. However, this will only apply if the country agrees to do the same for the Indian authorities, which in simple terms means reciprocity. Section 235: Letter of request to a country outside India in certain cases. “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any law for the time being in force if, in the course of insolvency resolution process, or liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings, as the case may be, under this Code, the resolution professional, liquidator or bankruptcy trustee, as the case may be, is of the opinion that assets of the corporate debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, are situated in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangements have been made under section 234, he may make an application to the Adjudicating Authority that evidence or action relating to such assets is required in connection with such process or proceeding. (2) The Adjudicating Authority on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) and, on being satisfied that evidence or action relating to assets under sub-section (1) is required in connection with insolvency resolution process or liquidation or bankruptcy proceeding, may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority of such country competent to deal with such request.” In order to understand what Section 235 says, let’s take an example wherein a company undergoing insolvency in India owns a building in Dubai. Now, if India and the UAE have a reciprocal arrangement under Section 234, then the Resolution Professional can apply in NCLT, asking to take action on the Dubai property, and if the tribunal agrees then it can send a formal request to UAE court to take the necessary action, like freezing or selling of the assets. However, even after almost a decade of IBC, no reciprocal agreements under Sections 234–235 have been concluded. Thus, these provisions remain inoperative. Further, in the absence of formal cross-border insolvency legislation, the Indian courts have only way of enforcing an insolvency decree is via section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recognition and the enforcement of the foreign judgment that relies on the fact that it satisfies the provisions therein. Why Recognition Without Reciprocity Is a Global Trend? The answer to the question as to why recognition without reciprocity is becoming a global trend is simple and identifiable; this is the era of globalized commerce, wherein businesses operate across jurisdictions and the corporate debtors hold assets and owe obligations not just in one country. Consequently, this gave rise to the need for national insolvency regimes to address the complexity of cross-border insolvency in a manner that is coordinated, efficient, and equitable. We have to understand that at the heart of the global trend lies the principle of modified universalism, which balances the need for a single, centralized insolvency process with the sovereignty and interests of local jurisdictions. This philosophy is embodied in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), which has now been adopted, with or without modification, in over 60 states and 63 jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, Japan, and other multiple jurisdictions, enabling smooth cross-border insolvency. This model law is intentionally neutral on reciprocity, which means that it does not require the adopting countries to condition their recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings on whether the initiating country would do the same or not. This is basically done with the approach that encourages open coordination and recognizes that the benefits of facilitating the efficient cross-border resolution outweigh the potential cost of asymmetry. However, it must also be recognized that despite the inclusive spirit of the model law there are few jurisdictions, such as Mexico, South Africa, and Romania, that have inserted reciprocity clauses that condition recognition on mutual treatment. These clauses have however been widely criticized for being counterproductive. As discussed in India’s 2018 Insolvency Law Committee (ILC) report and reinforced by comparative academic commentary, reciprocity creates regulatory fragmentation, slows down the legal process, and undermines the very goal of harmonization. Now, considering the Indian perspective, Sections 234 and 235 of the IBC have proven to be a bottleneck. It is to be noted that as of mid-2025, India has not signed any reciprocal agreement which renders the provisions ineffective in practice. The absence of an enacted cross-border insolvency law ultimately means that India remains a passive recipient of the recognition abroad while offering no equivalent legal certainty to the foreign investors or the insolvency practitioners operating in India. Considering the reasons for the recognition without reciprocity, there are three key drivers: 1. Value Preservation and Economic Efficiency: The individuals in these proceedings are obviously commercially driven, which ultimately makes their goal to be the preservation of the value of the assets and at the same time be economically efficient. It is no secret that multiple jurisdictions and local courts will lead to delay in the recognition and can lead to a “race to the courthouse,” where local creditors attempt to seize assets before foreign proceedings are acknowledged. 2. Enhancing Global Credibility and Investment Climate: Jurisdictions that extend recognition to foreign proceedings build their reputation as legally mature, creditor-friendly, and cooperative. 3. Judicial Predictability and Legal Certainty: A harmonized legal regime based on objective criteria simplifies litigation, reduces costs, and enhances procedural fairness. The Model Law’s framework (Articles 15–17) for recognition and relief provides a uniform path forward that is missing from India’s current ad hoc and discretionary mechanisms. The Re Camouflage Case and Its Implications Recently, Singapore High Court’s decision in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd [2025] SGHC 49 marked a moment in cross-border insolvency jurisprudence involving India. For the first time, a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated under India’s IBC regime which was formally recognized as a “foreign main proceeding” in a jurisdiction that had adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Facts of the case were simple: Compuage Infocom Ltd (CIL), an Indian company, was undergoing CIRP under NCLT Mumbai and the appointed Resolution Professional, Mr. Gajesh Jain, sought recognition of the Indian proceedings in Singapore to access and administer assets held there. The Singapore High Court undertook a detailed examination of the criteria under the Model Law, including the definition of “foreign proceeding,” and considered the status of NCLT as a foreign court and whether India was CIL’s Center of Main Interest. The court of Singapore then concluded affirmatively on all counts that is a. CIRP was collective, judicial, and reorganization-focused; b. NCLT was deemed a competent adjudicatory body; and c. India was the COMI based on operational and managerial control. With this, RP got control over the assets that were situated in Singapore, but it imposed a moratorium on the local enforcement actions. The court withheld the automatic repartition, emphasizing the need to protect local creditors. With this, there was the exercise of modified universalism, which cooperated with the other jurisdiction without sacrificing local interest, which is located and reflected in the heart of the Model Law’s philosophy. It also exposed India’s policy gap: Singapore recognized Indian proceedings, yet India has no reciprocal framework to do the same, owing to its reliance on outdated provisions under Sections 234 and 235 of the IBC, which are dependent on bilateral treaties that have not materialized. With this comes practical and reputational consequences for India which are as follows: a. First, Indian RPs can benefit from global recognition, but foreign insolvency professionals cannot access Indian jurisdictions with equivalent clarity or certainty. b. Second, while the ruling enhances confidence in India’s domestic procedures, it may also pressure India to adopt the Draft Part Z based on the Model Law, currently pending legislative action. Missed Opportunities in Indian Jurisprudence It is undeniable that the insolvency regime in India has improved significantly, but with regard to the cross-border insolvency regime, it still lacks, and here are the missed opportunities in Indian jurisprudence: a. The insolvency bankruptcy code was enacted in 2016, and soon after that, the need for cross-border was realized, and therefore, the Insolvency Law Committee recommended Draft Part Z’s inclusion to address the complexities of insolvency cases involving assets and creditors across different countries. Although Draft Part Z promised structured recognition of both foreign main and non-main proceedings, automatic moratoria, and clear standards for cooperation, it remains unnotified nearly seven years on, forcing stakeholders into ad hoc bilateral protocols rather than a uniform statutory regime. b. Second, the Jet Airways case, which depicts the judicial hesitation to embrace cross-border coordination. In this case the Mumbai NCLT initially rejected the Dutch trustee’s recognition, but the NCLAT partially rectified this by admitting the trustee “without voting rights” and sanctioning a bespoke Cross-Border Insolvency Protocol . This case highlighted the potential for cooperation and the risk that, absent clear law, courts will default to a territorialist posture, delaying asset pooling and value maximization. c. Third, in Videocon Industries, the NCLT sought to “lift the veil” over four foreign subsidiaries to include their assets, but the NCLAT stayed that order and, in effect, excluded significant overseas value from the resolution pool. Now this happens because there is no explicit statutory authority to administer. d. Fourth, India’s reliance on Sections 234–235 IBC (reciprocal treaties and letters of request) continues to be sterile, as there have been no bilateral agreements concluded, rendering these provisions dormant. India’s Draft Framework and Why It Remains Stalled India’s Draft cross-border insolvency framework is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and remains inexplicably stalled despite growing global integration and increased foreign investment. The delay is not just about the bureaucratic sluggishness; it highlights other issues such as India’s persistent consciousness towards relinquishing control in the transnational insolvency matters. The government has hesitated to implement it, citing concerns over judicial discretion, regulatory overlap, and potential misuse. However, one major reason is the fear of giving too much power to the foreign courts in matters involving Indian creditors and assets. Also, the Draft lacks certain clarity on the reciprocity that triggers the uneasiness about enforcing the Indian judgments abroad which might lead to the gap between the global north and global south as well. The Indian government might also be focused upon the sovereign rights that it can realize while keeping the insolvency regime to itself, particularly safeguarding the public interest. Without stronger political will and trust in institutional mechanisms, India risks remaining an outlier in global insolvency cooperation, which is repulsive to investor confidence and cross-border trade. Conclusion The global trend toward recognition without reciprocity reflects an international consensus that efficient cross-border insolvency mechanisms are relevant to economic stability, investor protection, and legal predictability. By continuing to insist on reciprocity and bilateral treaties, India risks isolating itself from this cooperative framework because legislative inertia not only hampers Indian creditors’ ability to recover abroad but also disincentivizes foreign participation in Indian restructurings. It is, therefore, essential that India align itself with the Model Law’s principles and become a proactive contributor to the global insolvency architecture. While at the same time protecting the local and the domestic interests of the creditors. References: https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2017/05/indian-insolvency-regime-without-cross-border-recognition-task-half-done/ https://ibclaw.in/recognition-of-indian-cirp-proceedings-in-a-foreign-court-a-landmark-judgment-and-the-call-for-cross-border-insolvency-laws-in-india-by-abhineet-pange-and-mahima-jayan/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/19/need-for-international-harmonisation-of-cross-border-insolvency-laws/ https://www.taxmann.com/research/ibc/top-story/105010000000026523/indias-approach-towards-cross-border-insolvency-law-the-way-forward-experts-opinion https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-comparative-law/article/indias-journey-towards-crossborder-insolvency-law-reform/358135F0BED9AA9375F21913BAB56A73 https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/navigating-cross-border-insolvency-evaluating-indias-legal-framework-and-the-uncitral-model-law-2014/

Introduction Today, the world has become a global village, at least in the economic sense. In this increasingly interconnected global economy, corporate distress rarely respects national borders. It is not unknown that every country has multinational enterprises that are operating across various jurisdictions, which inevitably requires that there should be an insolvency regime that cooperates …