In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.

The Facts – Briefly Stated

The Facts – Shortly Stated

On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

In this Article, José-Antonio Maurellet SC (a member of DVC and an Associate Member of 3 Verulam Buildings) and Michael Lok discuss the landmark decision just handed down by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others 

On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.

In this article, Jose Maurellet SC and Michael Lok consider a recent judgment by Aedit Abdullah J of the Singapore High Court exploring issues arising out of the Model Law, including how and when the presumptive COMI may be displaced and whether a publicly held real estate investment trust falls within the scope of COMI.

In Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817, Mr Justice Harris held that keepwell disputes should be determined in Hong Kong in accordance with the contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause, notwithstanding the Court recognising the keepwell provider’s Mainland insolvency proceedings.

Test for risk of dissipation

In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.

In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.

The material facts