Key Points
- Under rule 98(2)(c) of the Singapore Bankruptcy Rules, the court shall set aside a statutory demand if the creditor holds ‘security for the debt’ claimed in the demand, and the court is satisfied that the value of such security is equivalent to or exceeds the full amount of the debt.
- This case suggests that the creditor making a statutory demand is not obliged to disclose security offered by a third party, but only by the debtor in respect of the debt.
The Facts
In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of Hanjin's Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.1
IN BRIEF
Draft legislation unveiled
In a recent decision Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tembusu Terminals Pte Ltd) and others [2016] SGHC 36, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming, sitting in the High Court, elaborated on the standard required to justify a search order (also known as an Anton Piller order). The Court emphasised in particular, that the onus was on the party seeking the search order to show that there is a real possibility that the defendants will otherwise destroy documents that are relevant to the proceedings.
In Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] SGCA 23, the Singapore Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether a statutory demand issued to a guarantor would be deemed defective and liable to be set aside if it did not include the details of a pledge given by the principal debtor.
Financial Services Regulatory Singapore Client Alert May 2016 MAS Issues Proposed Enhancements to Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions in Singapore Background In June 2015, the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS") issued a consultation paper on the Proposed Enhancements to the Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions in Singapore ("June 2015 Consultation Paper").
Delaware has long established itself as a welcoming jurisdiction for various legal purposes. It began as a center for company incorporation by providing a corporate law framework that was flexible and continuously updated for new developments. More recently, Delaware has applied those same principles (plus an expansive view of venue) to become a center for major chapter 11 reorganization filings.
A case study of W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Tycoon Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] SGHC 80
Overview
In the race between Singapore and Hong Kong to become the leading dispute resolution centre in Asia, Singapore may be taking the lead.
Singapore is forging ahead with plans to approve third party funding of disputes.
Draft legislation aimed at permitting third party funding of international arbitration (including related litigation and mediation), enforcement proceedings and proceedings to stay was published by Singapore’s Ministry of Law on 30 June 2016.
A milestone year
The acceptance of the Committee’s recommendation is a boost in Singapore’s bid to become a debt restructuring hub, and it is likely to be exciting to see how and when these recommendations will be implemented.
On 20 July 2016, Singapore’s Ministry of Law accepted the recommendations of the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (the “Committee”).