It has often been said that the route of winding up a company is the remedy of last resort in a creditor’s odyssey to recover a debt owed to it. This is as not only would the granting of a winding up order have drastic repercussions for the debtor company, but there is also no guarantee that the creditor would be able to recover the full debt thereafter.

“Rather fail with honour than succeed by fraud” – Sophocles    

Introduction  

Fraud and its impact on businesses are an increasing concern. The costs of addressing the consequences of fraudulent conduct are growing exponentially and fraudulent schemes are becoming more prevalent, sophisticated and even international.  

Introduction

In the recent case of Atlas Equifin Pte Ltd v Electronic Cash and Payment Solutions (S) Pte Ltd (Andy Lim and others, non-parties) [2022] SGHC 258 (“Atlas Equifin”), the Singapore High Court had the opportunity to consider the unexplored issue of whether shareholders/ contributories have legal standing to oppose a creditor’s winding up application.

Facts

Introduction

The High Court on 25 May 2022, allowed the judicial management order applications (“JM Applications”) filed by three wholly-owned subsidiaries of Jerasia Capital Berhad (“JCB”), namely Jerasia Apparel Sdn Bhd (“JASB”), Jerasia Fashion Sdn Bhd and Canteran Apparel Sdn Bhd (“CASB”) (collectively the “Applicants”).

Introduction

On 28 July 2021, Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”) issued the Policy Document on Recovery Planning (“Policy Document”) which came into effect immediately.

The Policy Document applies to the following institutions under the Financial Services Act 2013 or the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013:

In its recent decision, Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RMCA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] SGCA 60, the Singapore Court of Appeal had occasion to clarify the applicable test for determining whether a company is insolvent/ unable to pay its debts under Section 254(2)(c) of the Singapore Companies Act 1967 (“Companies Act”) (which is in pari materia with Section 466(1)(c) of our Companies Act 2016).

Brief background factsIn the case of Ler Cheng Chye & Anor v Wong Ching Yong & Ors [2020] 7 AMR 900, [2020] MLJU 1565, Darryl Goon J decided on the issues concerning a challenge to the role played by a receiver and manager, and the need to consider what a receiver and manager appointed over the assets and undertaking of a company may or may not do, upon the commencement of winding up proceedings of that company.

In Re:Malaya Sibuku; Ex P: Kaya Karisma Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 403, various submissions were advanced by a judgment debtor (“Debtor”) in an appeal against the Senior Assistant Registrar’s (“SAR”) decision in granting leave to the judgment creditor (“Creditor”) to commence bankruptcy proceedings against the Debtor.

The Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs issued the Prescription of Amount of Indebtedness of Company under Paragraph 466(1)(a) (Gazette Notification No. 4159/2021) stating that the amount of indebtedness for the purposes of section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 shall be an amount exceeding RM50,000 with effect from 1 April 2021.