Speaking exclusively to��India Business Law Journal,��on the reason for her move, Hatti said, “The idea is to have more freedom in terms of the kind of work that one can do.”����

“As an independent counsel, one can work with a wider range of clients and firms both in India and outside. I hope to be able to capitalise on this broader range of work. In some ways, it is a shift to look more closely at the law.”��

At Samvad, she also held the post of co-head for the employment law practice. With more than 18 years of experience in dispute resolution, Hatti has advised on both domestic and cross-border matters.

Affirming that she will continue with her core practice areas, she says, “The core focus area will continue to be the same – corporate and commercial work resolved through arbitration, mediation and through mainstream litigation.��

“I will also continue to work on internal investigations and corporate governance compliance concerns.����Arbitration continues to strengthen in India. I hope to sit as an arbitrator in commercial matters.”��

Hatti has also voiced the need for more equality among arbitrators in India, “I would also like to see more women as arbitrators and hopefully I will be one drop in that ocean. I am a strong believer in mediation and I hope that I will recognise opportunities where mediation can be the solution in a dispute.”��

So what will she miss most from her life at Samvad? “I will miss the collegiate environment, and the hustle and bustle of large and varied teams across practice areas in a firm. ��

“As a senior partner, you felt responsible for these teams. This translates into a lot of time thinking and working with these teams. The time spent in managing and running a firm outside the legal work is very high.��

“With independent practice, you are responsible for a smaller and more niche practice,” she adds, saying her friends have reached out to work on different matters.��

And her clients? Hatti tells��IBLJ��that while it was still early to guage. “Client expectations have not changed. Clients want innovative, quick and commercially sound outcomes in a cost-effective manner.”��

“They trust you to deliver the outcome. I hope that in this new role, I will continue to be able to satisfy the expectations placed in me.”��

The post Poornima Hatti to fly solo after 15 years at Samvad appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

“Discussions regarding a potential merger are currently underway; however, nothing has been finalised at this stage,” Kyu Chul Lee, senior managing partner at D&A, told Asia Business Law Journal.

Jin Seok Lim, senior managing partner at LIN, echoed Lee’s sentiments.

The potential merger between the two firms would create South Korea’s eighth-largest law firm by revenue. In 2025, D&A reported annual revenue of KRW102.7 billion (USD67.5 million), while LIN recorded KRW41 billion (USD27 million).

According to the Korean Bar Association website, the combined firm would have a total of 297 Korean-licensed attorneys.

Both Lee and Lim declined to provide further specifics, citing the sensitive and ongoing nature of the discussions.

The post D&A and LIN eye law firm merger in South Korea appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The pair previously had their own law firm, Justin & Tan Partnership, which they operated for just under four years in Kuala Lumpur.

HHQ managing partner Quek Ngee Meng confirmed that the decision to hire Tan and Ng was “part of our deliberate strategy”.������

“They have enhanced our capabilities in capital markets and family office-related work, allowing us to better support clients across a broader spectrum of corporate and investment needs. Their appointments reflect our continued focus on building a robust and well-rounded corporate practice,” he told��Asia Business Law Journal.��

Tan and Ng specialise in corporate and commercial matters, including M&A, corporate advisory and cross-border transactions.

The post HHQ boosts corporate practice with two new partners appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The incoming team brings broad advisory expertise spanning insurance and reinsurance, international arbitration, commercial disputes, corporate and M&A transactions, regulatory and compliance matters, major infrastructure, real estate and technology, media and telecommunications (TMT).

Tang advises insurers, reinsurers and multinational corporates on complex insurance disputes, cross-border arbitration and high-value commercial litigation across Southeast Asia, particularly in relation to major claims and evolving risk issues.

Masagee supports domestic and international clients investing in regulated sectors, such as energy, TMT and financial services.

As for Suttawatanadech, he specialises in construction and infrastructure matters, complex commercial disputes and arbitration, as well as investigations, product liability and corporate crime and regulatory investigations.

The post Clyde & Co bulks up Bangkok office with DLA Piper partners appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

She joins from Singaporean law firm WongPartnership, where she spent 10 years and most recently served as a partner.

Jean Woo, Ashurst’s Singapore office managing partner, told Asia Business Law Journal that Tan’s “appointment reflects our broader growth strategy in Asia” as the firm was “seeing a significant increase in the volume and complexity of restructuring mandates across the region”.

Tan specialises in restructuring and insolvency, and advises corporate debtors, sponsors, creditors and turnaround professionals and investors.

She also has experience in maritime and shipping disputes, frequently representing bank creditors, shipowners, charterers, shipyards and offshore oil and gas companies in a wide range of matters, including disputes arising from charterparties, insurance policies and bills of lading.

“Kai Yun’s deep expertise across both the contentious and non-contentious sides of restructuring and insolvency, her strong relationships with financial institutions and her active maritime and shipping practice made her an exceptional fit for what we are building here,” Woo added.

The post Ashurst adds Singapore restructuring and insolvency partner appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

Hafiz Zubir, a partner and head of the general and intellectual property litigation practice group, told Asia Business Law Journal that launching the Putrajaya office was “a strategic move to be in closer proximity to the federal administrative capital and the appellate courts”.

“The timing naturally coincided with the firm’s recent integration of a specialist litigation and intellectual property team earlier this year. This provided the ideal foundation and resources to launch this geographical expansion effectively,” he said.

The Putrajaya office would initially focus on general and intellectual property litigation, as well as oil, gas and energy projects, with plans to expand into conveyancing and real estate in the future, Hafiz Zubir added.

A team of four lawyers – comprising one partner, senior associate (of counsel) Mahadi Abdullah, a 33‑year veteran of Petronas, and two legal associates – along with two legal secretaries will be based at the new office.

With the launch of the Putrajaya office, Azmi & Associates now has four locations in Malaysia, with the other three in Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru and Penang.

The post Malaysia’s Azmi & Associates opens new office in Putrajaya appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

Sano, who has a wealth of experience in crime-related matters, joined the firm from the National Police Agency, where she served as director of the personnel and training bureau and director of the community safety bureau at the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department.

She focuses on crisis management, fraud investigations, labour and harassment response, economic security and cybersecurity.

She also worked as the director general of the Commissioner General’s Secretariat of the National Police Agency and made contributions to legal practice as counsellor for the Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary’s Office and for the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs.

The post Ex-National Police Agency director general joins Anderson Mori appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

Analysis suggests that Belt and Road investment is shifting from infrastructure towards industrial and technology collaboration, with political and regulatory risk emerging as a core variable in cross-border ventures. For critical infrastructure projects, the stability of concession rights demands close attention, while data compliance and technology regulation are fast becoming legal flashpoints. Companies should respond by building a multi-layered legal protection framework through investment structuring, investment treaties and international arbitration mechanisms.

Trends

The Belt and Road investment used to focus on transport, power generation and energy infrastructure. Recent years, however, have seen the investment profile progressively shift towards industrial and technology collaboration. This means that companies must now contend not only with traditional construction-related legal issues, but also with emerging risks in data compliance, technology regulation and industrial policy, with risks varying across sectors.

1. New energy: Typically structured around photovoltaic, power and energy storage projects, with legal concerns on power purchase agreements and government guarantees.
2. Ports and logistics: Typically structured around port concessions and shipping co-operation, with legal concerns on the stability of concession rights.
3. Digital economy: Typically structured around data centres and telecommunication networks, with legal concerns on data security and cross-border transfer compliance.
4. High-end manufacturing: Typically structured around overseas industrial parks and joint ventures, with legal concerns on foreign investment rules and technology regulation.

Belt and Road projects usually operate through multi-layered investment structures. The transaction frameworks and investment models include equity participation and project financing, EPC contracting and long-term operation, and PPP and concession arrangements. The associated contract architecture encompasses project development agreements, concession agreements, power purchase agreements, financing agreements and government guarantees.

Investment risks

Corporate overseas investment risks generally cluster into five key areas:

1. Political risk arising from government transitions or policy shifts, potentially triggering project termination or renegotiation;
2. Regulatory risk arising from foreign investment restrictions or approval changes, possibly requiring adjustment of investment structures;
3. Contract risk stemming from unstable concession rights, exposing companies to commercial disputes or losses;
4. Data and technology risk arising from cross‑border data regulation, where non‑compliance can lead to penalties; and
5. Financial risk comes in the form of exchange controls and financing constraints, possibly eroding investment returns.

For major infrastructure and energy ventures, political and regulatory risks typically make or break project stability.

Hot spot

A recent case that has drawn widespread attention in international investment circles involves a foreign government’s revocation of a port concession held by an overseas enterprise.

The overseas company had long operated two strategically located ports at either end of a key canal and was in the process of selling its global port assets to an international shipping consortium. However, the country’s Supreme Court ruled that the concession agreements were unconstitutional, prompting the government to terminate the concession and assume operational control. The move has not only jeopardised a multibillion-dollar global port transaction, but is also set to trigger international arbitration claims.

The episode underscores how, in critical infrastructure sectors, commercial investment is often deeply intertwined with national strategy and geopolitics.

For Chinese companies investing in the Belt and Road countries, political risks now extend beyond traditional threats of war and expropriation towards more subtle forms of sovereign default and regulatory change. Examples include a new host government refusing to honour concession agreements signed by its predecessor, or imposing environmental and labour regulations that indirectly inflate project costs. Standard contract models of International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), with their broad force majeure clauses, offer little protection against such acts of governmental opportunism.

Full-cycle risk model

The Belt and Road investment risks typically span three phases: pre-investment, execution and post-investment. Companies therefore need to establish a full-cycle legal risk management framework, deploying tailored legal strategies at each stage:

1. Pre-investment risks centre on foreign investment restric- tions and policy uncertainty. Mitigation requires thorough due diligence and careful structuring of the investment;
2. Execution risks arise from contract performance and govern- ment approvals. The focus should be on contract management and building robust compliance systems; and
3. Post-investment risks involve policy shifts and disputes. Companies should turn to international arbitration and investment protection mechanisms.

Recommendations

Country-specific legal monitoring systems. For priority investment destinations, companies should leverage local legal resources to track real-time changes to investment restrictions, tax and labour laws.

Stress tests on existing contracts. Companies should review their current Belt and Road project agreements, focusing on the robustness of force majeure clauses, change‑of‑law provisions and termination compensation formulas to identify potential exposure to political risk.

Cross‑jurisdictional legal collaboration. For complex projects, companies should assemble a legal team comprising a Chinese law firm, a leading local counsel in the host country, and international arbitration specialists. This ensures that transaction structures comply with Chinese regulatory requirements, integrate seamlessly into the host legal system, and possess the resilience to withstand international arbitration challenges.

Zhang Tianyi is a partner at Tahota Law Firm. He can be contacted by phone at +86 136 0881 0332 and by email at tianyi.zhang@tahota.com

The post Responding to legal challenges in overseas investment appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The transaction involves a fresh issue of around INR80 billion worth of shares (USD851 million) and the sale of up to 43,227,668 equity shares from existing investors.

“The proposed IPO marks a key milestone in the evolution of India’s healthcare ecosystem, reflecting sustained institutional investor interest and the growing role of public markets in supporting capacity expansion and healthcare infrastructure,” said Vijay Parthasarathi, lead partner for Trilegal’s capital markets team.

Trilegal is advising the promoters, the MEMG Group, including Dr Ranjan Ramdas Pai, Manipal Global Health Services, MEMG International and Manipal Education and Medical Group India, the promoter group selling shareholder.

The Trilegal capital markets team had the support of associates Prajna Kariappa, Shashwat Raj Solanki, Jahnavi Jayasimha Rao, Vansh Dhoka and Joseph George. Partners Harsh Maggon and Ankit Kejriwal led the corporate team, while partners Kannan Rahul and Vidhi Sarin led the finance team.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas acted as Indian counsel for Manipal Hospitals. The core transaction team was led by senior partner Yash Ashar and partner Janhavi Manohar, with support from principal associate Anjali Menon, and associates Bhaskar Kumar, Tejaswi Sade, Parameswaran Chidamparam, Siddharth Kaushik alongwith legal trainees Namita Kaushik and Mohnish Khandale.

JSA Advocates & Solicitors is advising the Temasek Group (promoter) on the IPO, led by lead partner Vikram Raghani and partners Arka Mookherjee and Rishabh Gupta. They were supported by partner Siddharth Desai alongwith a team of associates.

Latham & Watkins served as international counsel to Manipal Health. Khaitan & Co advised on India law, while White & Case acted as international counsel to the bookrunning lead managers.

Manipal Health Enterprises, also known as Manipal Hospitals, filed a draft red herring prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Board on 23 March 2026.

Headquartered in Bengaluru, Manipal Health is a for-profit enterprise, operating a network of 49 hospitals in 24 cities across India.

The post Firms act on Manipal Health’s USD1.2bn IPO bid in India appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

Because the unboxing process is shown in real time and the outcome is random while combining entertainment and interaction, this has quickly gained enthusiastic traction among collectors.

However, compared with conventional retail, live card unboxing often combines merchandise transactions with a randomised mechanism. From a legal perspective, this may raise issues around livestream activity regulation, online transaction compliance, and gambling-like risks.

Against this backdrop, this series analyses the compliance boundaries for live card unboxing in two parts. Part 1 outlines the general regulatory requirements for online livestream activities, introducing the basic nature of live card unboxing and common formats.

Part 2, to follow, further analyses the main legal risks and discusses practical compliance advice for the business.

General livestream compliance

Regulators have developed a multi-layer framework for supervising online livestream activities. Livestreams typically involve multiple parties including the livestream platform, streamer or MCN agency, and merchant.

Where product sales are conducted through livestreaming, the relevant parties must comply not only with platform rules, but also with China’s regulatory requirements on online transactions, among other areas.

Entity qualifications and platform governance. Online livestream activities must comply with article 7 of the Administrative Provisions on Internet Live Streaming Services. This requires livestream service providers to verify the real identity of content publishers, establish content management systems, and take timely action against illegal or non-compliant content.

As a result, streamers and relevant merchants are typically required to complete real name verification on the platform and conduct commercial activities in line with platform rules.

When a livestream involves product sales, its legal nature is usually treated as an online transaction. Under article 32 of the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Livestreaming Ecommerce, the livestream room operator must prominently display the product name, price and pricing unit, or the service content and pricing method.

Article 34 further prohibits false or misleading marketing about the merchant entity, product performance, quality, user reviews and similar matters. Article 44 prohibits livestream marketing service providers from helping to carry out misleading marketing through fake transactions or reviews. In livestream e-commerce, a streamer’s product pitch directly shapes consumers’ buying decisions, so it is especially important to provide truthful, complete and prominent disclosures on matters such as product source, performance, pricing and after-sales service.

Common interactive marketing in livestreams, such as lucky draws and giveaway benefits, must also comply with promotion rules. Article 11 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides that, in prize-based sales promotions, business operators must not provide unclear prize promotion information. In livestream marketing, if the interactive mechanism is directly tied to consumer payment, or if a randomisation mechanism determines what benefit the consumer receives, it is more likely to be treated as probability-based marketing or a blind box-like sales model.

Unboxing formats

Under the Guidelines on Regulating Blind Box Business Practices (Trial), “blind box” refers to a business model where, when selling goods or services, the operator tells consumers only a defined range of the goods or services – but does not disclose the specific model, style or service content, with the consumer obtaining specific goods or service through random selection.

In other words, randomness is the core legal feature of blind box products.

Take sports trading cards as an example. Their product design inherently involves random distribution: a box typically includes base cards, limited edition cards, autograph cards and other cards of varying scarcity.

Consumers cannot know in advance which specific cards they will receive, making this format highly similar to blind boxes.

In practice, merchants usually sell card packs or boxes through livestream platforms and conduct live card unboxing during the stream. After a consumer places an order, the streamer opens the pack on camera, shows the cards, and then ships the cards to the consumer. This format is interactive and entertaining, and it can readily trigger impulse purchases by potential consumers.

In sports trading card live unboxing, common formats generally fall into the following categories.

• Card and code: the merchant presets codes linked to specific teams or players. At the live card unboxing, if the unboxed card matches the consumer’s purchased code, the consumer receives the card or a reward.
• Team break: typically used for high-priced boxes where multiple consumers share the cost, and the unboxed cards are allocated based on pre-set rules such as by team, by a card list, or by assigned slots.
• Battle mode: after the live card unboxing, participants compare card value, serial numbers or player tiers, and the winner receives an additional reward. Custom blind box: the merchant opens original boxes, then re-mixes, repackages and resells the cards. Because this changes the original packaging structure, it more easily triggers disputes over odds disclosure, card distribution and overall transaction transparency.

Conclusion

Live card unboxing can be seen as an extension of livestream e-commerce, but adds a clear random mechanism to the transaction process, making its legal assessment different from regular product sales. For this reason, while complying with general livestream rules, live card unboxing may also draw heightened regulatory scrutiny because of its blind box-like nature and gameplay design.

Therefore, the first step in understanding live card unboxing is not only to see its entertainment and social-driven business logic, but also to clarify its underlying legal nature.

The legal risks this model may raise in practice – including information disclosure, protection of minors, and potential gambling or fraud risks – will be addressed in more detail in Part 2 of this series.

Jiang Shen is a partner and Song Xueting is an associate at Jingtian & Gongcheng

Read more about live-stream trading card unboxing

---

Compliance boundary of live-stream trading card ‘unboxing’ (Part 2)

The first part of this series addressed standard compliance rules and the essential features of live-stream trading card unboxing

---

For more stories about labour disputes, visit law.asia.

The post Compliance boundary of livestream trading card ‘unboxing’ (Part 1) appeared first on 91��Ƶ.