Following an overhaul of the Singapore insolvency regime which came into force on 30 July 2020, the insolvency and restructuring framework was consolidated in the omnibus Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). One of the key features of the IRDA was to amend the then-existing construct of statutory avoidance actions in Singapore.

Overview of statutory avoidance provisions following IRDA

In Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International)¹ the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the trigger for when the director's duty to consider the interests of creditors is engaged (referred to in the judgment as the Creditor Duty).

The Court held that:

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

In Re Zipmex Pte Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 88, the Singapore High Court imported into the Singapore restructuring regime the US concept of an "administrative convenience class" in a scheme voting exercise. This concept allows debtors to obtain an approval from a large number of low value creditors without those creditors being involved in the voting exercise. This reduces the administrative burden on restructuring entities.

In recent years, Indonesian companies have shown both a greater willingness to use foreign restructuring processes, as well as a greater need to do so given the increasingly sophisticated financing structures and investor bases seen for Indonesian businesses. Some of the notable Chapter 15 protection cases include those involving the Duniatex Group in 2020, PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk in 2018, PT Bumi Resources Tbk in 2017, and Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd (a Singapore SPV of PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk) in 2015.

In Re Tantleff, Alan [2022] SGHC 147, the Singapore High Court considered for the first time whether the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (30 May 1997) (the "UNCITRAL Model Law") as enacted under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") (the "Singapore Model Law") applies to real estate investment trusts ("REITs").

Lock-up agreements typically involve the company's creditors committing in advance to vote at the relevant class meeting in favour of the contemplated scheme. Lock-up agreements serve an important commercial purpose of either securing support or giving an indicator as to likely support for the scheme before the parties incur the time and expense in finalising the negotiation process of the scheme.

The automatic stay under the version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency adopted by Singapore ("Singapore Model Law") is an accessible and powerful tool for protection under the Singapore restructuring regime for non-Singapore debtors facing enforcement action in Singapore. Non-Singapore debtors subject to restructuring or liquidation cases outside Singapore may obtain protection from creditor action in Singapore through the application of the Singapore Model Law, thereby facilitating the debtor's ability to restructure.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court: