Introduction
When a company goes into insolvent liquidation, maximising recovery for the company’s legitimate creditors takes highest priority.
In order to better protect the interests of creditors, Singapore law has long recognised that a company in liquidation should be protected from frivolous lawsuits, in order to ensure that the liquidation process is carried out smoothly and efficiently without incurring additional costs depleting the company’s asset pool. This protection comes in two ways:
はじめに
会社の破産手続が開始されると、会社の正当な債権者のための回収の最大化が最重要の法益となる。
会社の資産を枯渇させるような追加費用の発生を回避して清算処理を円滑かつ効率的なものにすることにより債権者の利益保護を図る趣旨で、シンガポール法においては、清算処理中の会社を濫用的な訴訟から保護すべきであると長い間認識されてきた。かかる保護は、2つの方法で行われている：
- 2018年倒産・再生・清算法（以下「IRDA」という。）の規定に基づき、裁判所の許可がない限り、清算処理中の会社に対して法的手続を開始することはできない。
- 裁判所の許可がない限り、会社のliquidator、すなわち当該会社の清算処理を行う管財人や清算人に対して、いかなる法的手続も提起できない。これは判例法に定められたコモンロー上の原則である。
この点、会社の清算処理を進める過程で、管財人や清算人が第三者と個別契約を締結する必要が生じることがある。その場合、そのような個別契約から生じる訴訟手続も裁判所の保護の対象となるかどうかが問題となる。
Introduction
© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.
The answer is “no”, following a recent decision by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (Court) which provides welcome guidance on the admission of proofs of debt.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
In August 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) launched a Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol, designed to provide a framework for arbitration of matters arising in the context of restructuring, adjustment of debt or insolvency.
Introduction
In Singapore, judicial managers ("JMs") appointed over a company are empowered to conduct a range of acts relating to the company's business. However, JMs face removal if they fail to adhere to the legislative framework on judicial management. In Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong [2025] SGCA 41, the Singapore Court of Appeal ("CA") set out the applicable test for when a JM may be removed for cause. In particular, the CA considered whether a JM may be removed for a decision based on legal advice.
In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.
Key Takeaways
In Re Resource Development Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2025] WASC 408, the Court granted relief to the voluntary administrators of Resource Development Group Ltd (RDG) from personal liability under a loan arrangement and extended time for the registration of a related security interest.
Key Takeaway