Click here to watch the video.

Jurisdictions across the globe have sought to expand their restructuring toolkits – spurred on by Governments seeking to support business during the pandemic. This has had a significant impact on the options available when restructuring business in Asia Pacific.

In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

Six days into 2020, the Indonesian Constitutional Court (“Constitutional Court”) began the New Year with a bang, issuing a decision that is not likely to be received well in loan markets.

The Constitutional Court has decided in favour of two petitioners (a married couple) and effectively changed the interpretation of Article 15(2) and (3) of the Fiducia Law (Law No. 42 of 1999), striking at the core principles of that law (“Constitutional Court Decision”).

Major law changes intended to make Singapore the region’s pre-eminent restructuring and insolvency hub have now come into effect.

On 22 May 2017, the Singapore Ministry of Finance issued a notice that sections 22 to 34, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53(3) and (6) and 54 (the Relevant Sections) of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (the Amendment Act) would come into operation on 23 May 2017.

On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.

In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.

As many Japanese contractors are exposed to the financial crisis in Dubai, this month our Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter focuses on an important recent development concerning Dubai World. At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No.