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.
Globalisation has been described as an evolving set of consequences – some good, some bad and some unintended. In this regard, when companies go global, insolvency is perhaps the furthest thing from their minds. Yet, while business failure may be unintended, when a global company becomes insolvent or attempts debt restructuring, its insolvency representative e.g. liquidator or manager, will often have to deal with assets and creditors across the globe.
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.
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
In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of Hanjin's Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.
In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of the Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Shipping) Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.
This is a follow-up to our previous client update on Swiber Holdings Limited written on 29 July 2016. To view our previous update, please click here.
Counterparties of Swiber Holdings Limited ("Swiber") and its group companies would do well to keep a close tab on any debts outstanding from the group.
Swiber, an SGX-listed company in the oil fields services sector, issued an announcement in the early hours of Thursday 28 July 2016 stating that it filed an application in the Singapore High Court for a voluntary winding up on Wednesday afternoon, together with an application to place the company under provisional liquidation.
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: