On 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.

The new laws have made Singapore more attractive 

The maritime and offshore (M&O) sector has endured almost a decade of distress since the global financial crisis. Overzealous ordering of newbuild vessels during the boom years, made available by cheap credit and the lure of increasing global demand, has left many sectors of the maritime industry oversaturated.

The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:

• the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
• execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.

There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.

The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.

There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.

After months of public consultations and revision, the Singapore parliament passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill (the "Bill") on 10 March 2017 amending the Singapore Companies Act (the "Companies Act"). The Bill contains, among others, significant and novel changes to Singapore's insolvency laws. This is no doubt a giant step towards positioning Singapore as Asia Pacific's Debt Restructuring Hub with cross-border restructuring capabilities.

Introduction - The Bill

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

Earlier this year the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (the "Committee") published, and the Singapore Ministry of Law accepted, recommendations aimed at enhancing Singapore's position as a `lead centre' for international debt restructuring. Is Singapore now well-positioned to become Asia Pacific's debt restructuring hub?

Background

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events: