When a company enters financial difficulty, it faces conflicting interests. On the one hand, it must continue with commercial transactions to preserve and hopefully rehabilitate the company; on the other, it must respect its creditors’ rights by not making payments which may be seen as preferring certain creditors.

The case of Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd [2010] SGHC 144 involved
the sale of the shares of a company which owned phosphate mining and production facilities in the
Sichuan province.

InEcon Piling Pte Ltd v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 120, the Singapore High Court rejected the proposition that where a debtor is released from its debt, its other joint-debtors are also automatically released.

Lee Eng Beng SC, Nigel Pereira and Jonathan Lee from the Business Finance and Insolvency Practice of Rajah & Tann LLP successfully represented the Appellant in Chee Yoh Chuang and Anor (as Liquidators of Progen Engineering Pte Ltd) v Progen Holdings Ltd [2010] SGCA 31.

Payments made by a company to its holding company shortly before its winding up were held to have amounted to an unfair preference of the holding company and could be clawed-back from it

Patrick Ang, Chin Wei Lin and Jonathan Lee from the Business Finance & Insolvency Practice of Rajah & Tann LLP acted for Standard Chartered bank in successfully overturning a decision of the High Court in Standard Chartered Bank v Loh Chong Yong Thomas [2010] SGCA 2.

The key issue arising in Econ Piling Ltd and Anor v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd and another matter was whether the join liability of Company A as a partner of Company B in a joint venture partnership was released as a result of a scheme of arrangement which released the debts and liabilities of Company B.

Introduction

When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator often needs approval from the Court or a liquidation committee before she can perform certain acts on the company’s behalf. The English High Court case of Gresham International Ltd v Moonie [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch) established that even where the liquidator has failed to obtain such approval before acting, the Court has the general discretion to grant retrospective approval.

Covid-19 has brought about much uncertainty for businesses worldwide and it is timely for a special edition of Going Concerns to provide a "survival guide" in the following jurisdictions Singapore, the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). This special edition will also touch on recent legislation and stimulus packages introduced by governments of the above (where applicable) in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, which will impact both creditors and debtors.

Survival guide

The Singapore Court may grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign court proceedings, but the Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant, and a substantive claim must nevertheless be brought against the defendant in Singapore

In Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and

another [2019] SGCA 50 (“China Medicalâ€), the Singapore Court of Appeal

(“CoAâ€) confirmed that the Singapore Court may grant freezing (or Mareva)

injunctions in support of foreign court proceedings. However, the Singapore