Introduction

A trustee-manager, in the context of a business trust, actively runs the trust's operations while safeguarding the interests of investors. In the course of acting as a trustee-manager, the entity may incur liabilities in relation to activities of the business trust. How are these liabilities treated in a restructuring and insolvency? And can a trustee-manager propose a scheme of arrangement for debts incurred in its capacity as trustee-manager?  

Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 178

In what could be seen as a wake-up call, the High Court of Singapore clarified the scope of director’s duties in Singapore, emphasizing the minimum standard of care required.

Background

Introduction

Introduction

When a company is being wound up or is in judicial management, the Court may – upon the application of the liquidator, the judicial manager, or a creditor – order the production of documents or information relating to the company, as well as the attendance of the company's officers and the people holding the relevant books and records. This facilitates the obtaining of documents or information for the purpose of determining the reasons for the company's demise.  

Introduction  

While a judicial manager is given a wide discretion to employ his skills and expertise in managing the affairs of a company in judicial management, the shareholders or creditors of the company may apply to court for relief where they contend that the company's affairs, business, or property have been managed by the judicial manager in a manner which is or was unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

Introduction  

In its recent decision in Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 38, the Singapore High Court held that the security interests of lenders survived the commingling of assets, and that the assets should be divided among the secured lenders in proportion to their respective contributions.

Facts

In its recent judgment in Ting Shwu Ping (Administrator of the estate of Chng Koon Seng, Deceased) v Scanone Pte Ltd and another appeal [2016] SGCA 65, the Singapore Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in deciding whether to exercise its discretion under section 254(2A) of the Companies Act to order a buy-out instead of a winding-up where a party has applied to wind up the company under section 254(1)(f) (where the directors have acted in the affairs of the company in their own interest rather than the interests of members as a whole) or section 254(1)(i) (where it is ju

Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled proposed amendments to the Singapore Companies Act to be made in 2017 to strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (“the proposed amendments”). The Ministry of Law released the proposed amendments for public consultation from 21 October 2016 to 2 December 2016.

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”).