The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant pressure on businesses and the economy. Even fundamentally healthy and viable businesses are seeing their financial resources stretched thin due to factors such as weakening demand, increasing late payments, and disruptions in supply chains.

Directors will play an important role in ensuring that their companies emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic in a strong and sustainable position.

Where a creditor of an insolvent company set conditions for its merger and advised its board of directors on its post-merger operations and finances, held that this was not sufficient to render it a shadow director of the company:

- Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Apply Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 (Australia, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 9 May 2011)

CASEWATCH JANUARY 2016 1 © WongPartnership LLP This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A). SINGAPORE HIGH COURT AFFIRMS THAT A PARTY MAY OBTAIN RESTRAINT ORDERS AHEAD OF ANY APPLICATION FOR THE CALLING OF A CREDITORS’ MEETING FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUTTING A COMPANY UNDER A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT In Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322, the Singapo

The Defendant served 2 payment claims on the Plaintiff for work done up to end of November 2014 in the month of December 2014. It was common ground that the revised payment claim served on 26 December 2014 (“PC3R”), replaced the earlier payment claim dated 5 December 2014. • The Defendant then served a third payment claim (“PC4”) in the same payment claim period, i.e., on 30 December 2014, this time for work done up to end of December 2014. • PC3R was not withdrawn by the Defendant.

This case involved a foreign company, Beluga Chartering GmbH ("Beluga") that had both creditors and assets in Singapore. However, as it had not carried on business here, it had not been required to register as a branch.

Alvin Yeo SC and  Melvin Lum acted for the Second Intervener, Thomas Chan, in his claim for $3,275,935.81 as interest for the late completion of the sale of a property ("Property").

The liquidators of the plaintiff Dynasty Line Ltd. ("Dynasty") brought proceedings against the first defendants ("Sia") and second defendant ("Lee") for breaches of duty owned to Dynasty while they were its directors.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in SAAG Oilfield Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Shaik Abu Bakar bin Abdul Sukol & Anor [2012] SGCA 7 has important implications as to the scope of creditors under a scheme of arrangement under section 210 of the Companies Act.

The defendant in this case was the liquidator of Kaki Bukit Industrial Park Pte Ltd (“Company”).

Facts

The plaintiff (“Mdm Cheo”) commenced divorce proceedings against her husband (“the bankrupt”) two weeks after she knew that the latter had been served a statutory demand by a bank to pay around US$8.67 million.