In Re PT MNC Investama TBK [2020] SGHC 149, the Singapore High Court provided guidance as to what is sufficient for a foreign company to establish standing to avail itself to the Singapore restructuring regime. Specifically, the factors expressed in the "substantial connection" test under the IRDA1 are non-exhaustive and courts will consider other factors involving "some permanence" to permit foreign companies to restructure in Singapore.
Establishing a "substantial connection"
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights the new restrictions on ipso facto provisions effected by the IRDA, which will be of particular interest to loan market participants.
Restrictions on ipso facto clauses
The landmark decision in Design Studio1 introduces the US rescue financing concept of "roll-ups" to Singapore. This is the first case to consider the appropriateness of the roll-up feature in Singapore and is a pragmatic decision that is guided by a careful balance between the protection of creditors' interests and the rehabilitation of the debtor. This case also clarifies that super priority is not solely for new money financings.
The Design Studio case and the super priority regime
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter ofCohalan & Mitchell Roofing (in liquidation)[2020] VSC 222, where the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to grant an extension of time for filing voidable transaction proceedings.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Federal Court ordered payments made while a DOCA was in force, to which the deed administrators were signatories, were recoverable as unfair preferences.
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court by which two DOCAs were terminated with the deed fund transferred to liquidators for the ultimate benefit of the secured creditor and, indirectly, the proponent of the deeds.
Key Takeaways
The Federal Court has permitted administrators to give notice of creditors’ meetings electronically, and to hold creditors’ meetings and future meetings of any committees of inspection by video or telephone conference.
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merlin Diamonds Limited (No 3)[2020] FCA 411, in which, consequent on finding a number of contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court ordered the winding up of that company.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Federal Court which enabled administrators of Virgin to send electronic notices, conduct electronic meetings and absolved them from personal liability for leases for four weeks due to COVID-19.
Background
On 20 April 2020, administrators were appointed to Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd and 37 of its subsidiaries (together, the Virgin Companies).
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Aardwolf Industries LLC v Riad Tayeh [2020] NSWSC 299, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused an application for leave to sue court-appointed liquidators for damages for negligence and misleading and deceptive conduct.
Background