In brief

The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the IRDA) commenced on 30 July 2020. The IRDA is an omnibus legislation that consolidates Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws into a single legislation. The IRDA will replace the Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions in the Companies Act, each of which will be repealed. The IRDA also introduces new changes to the insolvency framework in Singapore.

Key changes to Singapore insolvency framework

The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.

Background

Under Section 254(2)(a) of the Singapore Companies Act, a company can be wound-up by the court upon the application of a creditor who has served a statutory demand on the company for a debt of SGD 10,000 or more and the debt continues to remain unpaid for three weeks thereafter.

The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.  

The Singapore Ministry of Law will introduce the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill (the Bill) in Parliament next week to address the impact of COVID-19 on businesses and individuals' ability to fulfil their contractual obligations. The Bill will also make some temporary changes relating to bankruptcy and insolvency.

The Bill will apply to various categories of contracts, including:

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).