Lawpoint Uganda

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 There are two prevalent forms of dispute resolution in Russia: litigation in the state-run court system (commercial courts and courts of general #jurisdiction) and arbitration. Both have a long history dating back to pre-Soviet time (i.e. the XIX century). Liberation of the economic and political regime after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s has led to an increase in the number of ADR institutions (arbitral tribunals). Their exact number is difficult to assess, though it is estimated to exceed 1,000. Among those most visible and widely-known are the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) and its “companion” institution – the #Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (MAC), which falls under special regulation. The 1990s and 2000s have seen an uprise in the application and use of ADR mechanisms, arbitration in particular. Such a development is attributed to apparent advantages of arbitration. Among those frequently cited are: confidentiality of proceedings, relatively high level of professional qualifications of arbitrators, the possibility to appoint arbitrators, promptness of proceedings, less formalistic approach to evidence (e.g. acceptance of e-mail correspondence). Nevertheless, according to a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (WCIOM) in July 2013 primarily among lawyers and business people, 37% believe that the existing system of ADR institutions in Russia creates ‘pseudo legal’ #judgments in favor of the stronger or affiliated party. Other problems indicated by respondents are the lack of independent ongoing control (79%), dependence of arbitral tribunals on the entities creating them (78%), lack of liability for arbitrators (71%). Historically, the arbitrability of particular types of disputes in #Russia was questionable. For example, only recently the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation clarified that real estate disputes, including those related to foreclosure on mortgaged property and state registration thereof, may be subject to #arbitration. The long-standing issue of the arbitrability of corporate disputes is still unresolved. As a side note, Russian laws specifically prohibit arbitration for bankruptcy, certain patent, copyright, antitrust and employment disputes. Happy reading! DISCLAIMER: These Guides are intended for educational and academic discussion and are not intended as and must not be construed as legal advice. No information contained in the Guides may be quoted or reproduced elsewhere without the prior written consent of the authors and the Editors, and in particular, no opinion expressed by the authors in the Guides may be quoted in connection with any actual case or dispute. credits - original authors and IBA.

Company Law/ Insolvency Law: Can an Administrator’s Duty Extend to Shareholders When a Surplus is Likely? The UK High Court, in Re: Inshaw v. Richardson, explored significant complexities under UK insolvency law involving the question of whether an administrator's duties would extend to shareholders when a surplus is likely. While the Court did not find any breach by the administrator in this case, it also emphasized that such duties can extend to shareholders in certain instances. The case concerns companies - CFJL Property Partners Limited, Portfolio Property Partners Limited, and P3ECO (Bicester) Himley Limited- all in administration. An individual - Brigadier Ian Peter Inshaw, challenged the administrators’ actions, claiming that they unfairly harmed shareholder interests and should be removed. According to the facts discussed in the judgment, the administrators anticipated a surplus after paying creditors, leading to potential shareholder returns. This aspect prompted questions about balancing creditor and shareholder interests within insolvency proceedings. It was especially relevant as it involved a lender who enhanced their returns through financial support provided during the administration. What led to the case? The controversy arose from allegations that the administrators favored Desiman, the main lender, over shareholders. Desiman had provided financial support contingent on an arrangement increasing its share of returns, but shareholders argued that this approach compromised their interests. The administrators’ decisions regarding marketing and selling assets and certain profit-sharing adjustments with Desiman also sparked debate. Inshaw argued that these actions skewed the administrators' duties and disproportionately benefited the lender at shareholder expense. Judicial precedents and conclusion by the court The court referred to established case law on administrator duties, including Re: Nortel GmbH ([2013] UKSC 52) and Re: Hat & Mitre PLC ([2020] EWHC 2649 (Ch)). Both cases discuss how administrators must balance creditor and shareholder interests in cases where a surplus is likely. Ultimately, the court rejected the administrators' claims of intentional misconduct, ruling that they acted by their statutory duties. However, it emphasized that administrators should consider shareholder interests if a surplus is probable, as fairness in duty to both creditors and shareholders remains essential. These questions are also relevant to India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, although Indian jurisprudence varies to a certain extent. Read the following for more #law #legal #lawyers

Can a Will be valid if signed after death? Application regarding a 'statutory Will' made back in 2013, but ran into issues when probate was sought in 2024. Moore J in Re Bordon [2024] VSC. *** Section 21 of the Wills Act 1958 (Vic) allows the Court to make a Will on behalf of someone who does not have testamentary capacity. In doing so, the Court must be satisfied that (1) the person does not have capacity, (2) that the statutory Will reflects the persons intentions, and (3) it is reasonable for the Court to do so. *** In this matter, the Court made orders in 2013 for a statutory Will. The orders required that the document be '...signed by the Registrar of Probates, sealed with the seal of this Court and deposited with the Registrar...' However, when applying for probate in 2024, it was found that the statutory Will had in fact not been 'sealed with the seal of the Court' back in 2013 when the order was made. The Registrar subsequently signed and sealed the Will, but did so 6 weeks after death. This left some uncertainty as to the validity of the statutory Will, so the matter was referred to the Court for determination. Senior Counsel was appointed as amicus curiae ('friend to the Court') to file submissions as to the validity of the document (and who appears to have done so pro bono). *** The Court found the statutory Will to be valid, notwithstanding it was signed by the Registrar after death. Summarising its position at [31], 'the Wills Act does not contain any requirement which would operate to invalidate a statutory will signed and sealed after the death of the propositus, as long as the document so sealed and signed is in the same terms as authorised by an order of the Court made during the life of the propositus.' 'Although the validity of the statutory will is dependent upon the signature of the Registrar and the affixing of the seal of the Court, properly construed, the Wills Act does not impose any temporal requirement that the will be signed and sealed before the death of the propositus.'

More adventures in civil evidence. In Blower v GH Canfields [2024] EWHC 2763 (Ch), the judge set out to explain "how judges decide cases". Most of what is said is perfectly unobjectionable. However, one paragraph sticks out - paragraph [7], below - discussing the standard of proof. This paragraph makes a number of errors Lord Leggatt set out to identify in his recent article ((2024) 140 LQR 570). First, contrary to what this paragraph suggests, the standard of proof applies only to facts in issue in the case, and not simply any disputed facts before the court - as Lord Leggatt explains "there is no general rule that, in assessing evidence, any fact considered to be more probable than not is to be treated as if it were certain. Any such rule would be absurd and lead to utterly illogical conclusions". This is particularly important in relation to circumstantial evidence - where a primary fact is said to support an inference in relation to a fact in issue, the court should not consider that primary fact in isolation, decide whether it is more likely than not to be true and then either deem it to be absolutely true or not true before proceeding to consider other evidence. It should consider that fact along with all the other facts, and any uncertainty which attaches to them, and consider them in the round. Second, it is not good practice to suggest that precise percentages can be used or are being used. As Lord Leggatt says, it gives "a misleading appearance of precision to an assessment that is necessarily imprecise” and can lead judges to attempt to use precise percentage figures to reach conclusions which look mathematically certain but in fact are not logically supportable - for example, in Re A [2018] 4 WLR 117. Finally - something I have written about before - judges should under no circumstances be directing themselves that "the more serious the allegation, the more cogent must be the evidence needed to persuade the court". This is a straightforward misdirection which any losing claimant should be putting as their first ground of appeal. 

Who is the Salvage of Private Prosecution in Uganda?

Understanding the Proposed Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024: Key Highlights and Implications The Proposed Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has sparked significant discussion among stakeholders in Kenya’s financial and business sectors. As the government seeks to enhance tax compliance and revenue generation, understanding the implications of these proposed amendments is essential for businesses and individuals alike. Key Highlights: 🖋 Increased Tax Rates: The bill proposes adjustments to certain tax rates, impacting corporate taxes and individual income tax brackets. This could influence business profitability and personal take-home pay. 🖋 Digital Services Tax: A clearer framework for taxing digital services has been introduced, which will affect both local and international tech companies operating in Kenya. This amendment aims to address the challenges posed by the digital economy. 🖋 Tax Incentives: The bill includes provisions for new tax incentives aimed at promoting investment in specific sectors, such as renewable energy and technology startups. Understanding these incentives can help businesses strategize and maximize benefits. 🖋 Enforcement Measures: Enhanced compliance and enforcement measures are also outlined, which could result in stricter penalties for non-compliance. Businesses must review their tax practices to ensure adherence to the new regulations. 🖋 Public Participation: The bill emphasizes the importance of public participation in tax policy formulation, inviting stakeholders to contribute their views. This is a crucial step towards fostering transparency and inclusivity in tax matters. Conclusion: As the Proposed Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, moves through the legislative process, it is imperative for individuals and businesses to stay informed and engaged. Understanding these changes not only aids in compliance but also empowers stakeholders to make informed decisions that align with the evolving tax landscape. 👉 For deeper insights into these proposed amendments and their potential impact on your business, read our detailed commentary on the implications of the proposed Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 here: https://lnkd.in/dgJscwSN subscribe to my newsletter. Stay ahead of the curve and ensure your tax strategies are robust and compliant! #TaxLaw #Kenya #BusinessStrategy #TaxCompliance #FinancialInsights