Overview

The IMF, in a January 2016 update to its World Economic Outlook, revised its global growth projections for 2016 and 2017 down by 0.2%, citing a decline in emerging markets' growth and lower prices for energy and other commodities.^[1]

With the trough in the global economy set to continue, there is unlikely to be any respite for the marine and trade industries, where counterparty insolvency will become more prevalent. 

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.

In the latest decision in Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260, the Singapore courts have taken another step toward controlling the costs involved in insolvency and restructuring situations. In Kao, an application was made to the Singapore High Court to tax the fees of court-appointed receivers and managers. The application was heard before the learned Justice Steven Chong.

Introduction

The fees charged by insolvency practitioners can sometimes be a matter of contention, with different interested parties having differing expectations. Further, there is no comprehensive set of guidelines or regulations in Singapore setting out the basis on which insolvency practitioners should determine their fees, as well as the level of information on fees that should be provided to stakeholders. This sometimes leads to unhappiness as to the quantum and necessity of fees after the event.

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.

CASE UPDATE 11 November 2015 PROPOSED SYSTEM OF COSTS SCHEDULING FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260 INTRODUCTION This case concerns the quantum of professional fees reflected in a bill of costs issued by the receivers and managers (“R&Ms”) of Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Airtrust”).

Introduction

A statutory demand is an important step in the bankruptcy process, as it allows the creditor to initiate a bankruptcy application against the debtor. It is thus vital that any statutory demand issued must conform to the legislative requirements. In the recent case of Ramesh Mohandas Nagrani v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2015] SGHC 266, the Singapore High Court had to decide whether to set aside a statutory demand based on alleged irregularities in its contents, and touched on what makes a statutory demand invalid.