A case in which the Court held that there was not a ground for disconfirmation that qualifies as an event that: “the resolution on the rehabilitation plan has been adopted by unlawful means” (Article 174(2)(iii) of the Civil Rehabilitation Act) (Decision of the Supreme Court (Second Petty Bench) on December 22, 2021)
Authors：
Yasuhiro Akita
Restructuring, Rehabilitation, and Debt managment Newsletter Vol.44
Publisher：Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners
Date of publication： April 12, 2022
