When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
Singapore's economy is expected to see slower growth in 2023 after its rapid recovery from the pandemic in 2022, with the Ministry of Trade and Industry recently narrowing the GDP growth forecast for the year.1 As industries continue to feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates, creditors and debtors alike may be considering appropriate solutions for companies which struggle to pay their debts.
Singapore has earned a budding reputation as a hub for debt restructuring and insolvency in Asia, with its transparent legal system and judicial expertise. This growth can also be attributed to enduring efforts to innovate and reform.
To enhance Singapore as a forum of choice in international restructuring and insolvency proceedings, the Rules of Court were amended with effect from 1 October 2022 to allow restructuring and insolvency matters which are international and commercial in nature to now be heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC").
Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").
One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.