The case of Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 (“Petroprod Ltd”) is significant as the Singapore High Court decided that claims which arise from avoidance provisions in Singapore insolvency laws are non-arbitrable as they exist for the benefit of the general body of creditors as a whole.

In Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd & Anor v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd, one of the key issues which the Singapore High Court had to consider was whether the defendant was precluded from commencing winding up proceedings against the plaintiffs via section 254(2)(a) read with section 254(1)(e) of the Companies Act (the “CA”) on the basis of a debt that was founded on a foreign arbitration award which had not been enforced.

The Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chee Yoh Chuang & Anor (as Liquidators of Progen Engineering Pte Ltd (in liquidation)) v Progen Holdings Ltd considered how the lawought to balance the rights of creditorswith the companies directors' desire to keep the company afloat when the company has financial difficulties and when payments were made to creditors.

In an application by Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd (the
“Company”) pursuant to section 210 of the Companies Act, the Company
sought an order to convene a meeting of creditors for the purposes of
approving a scheme of arrangement.

In the recent Singapore High Court decision of Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August, the court held, among other things, that the concept of overreaching applies to a sale exercised by a mortgagee pursuant to a contractual right in a charge (as opposed to a statutory power of sale) and that the winding up of a company does not frustrate the sale and purchase of shares in the company.

The key issue arising in Econ Piling Ltd and Anor v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd and another matter was whether the join liability of Company A as a partner of Company B in a joint venture partnership was released as a result of a scheme of arrangement which released the debts and liabilities of Company B.

Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd [2011] SGCA 42

Jetivia S.A. & Anor v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liq) & Ors [2015] UKSC 23

BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd & Ors v Neuberger[2013]UKSC 28

The UK Supreme Court in BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd & Ors v Neuberger clarified the ambit of the “cash–flow insolvency” test under section 123 (1)(e) of the English Insolvency Act 1986 ("the "Insolvency Act") and the "balance-sheet insolvency" test under section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act.