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Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions in the Companies Act, each of which will be repealed.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:
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”
In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).
On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).
On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).