International Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 10 is a landmark case by the Singapore Court of Appeal that sets the test for how Singapore courts should in future approach the question of directors duties when a company is facing financial difficulties. It makes clear that the financial state of the company is an important consideration which a director should bear in mind, as it is the indicia of a shift in the economic interests in the company from the shareholders to the creditors.

Key takeaways

In Heince Tombak Simanjuntak & Ors v Paulus Tannos & Ors (2019), the Singapore High Court granted recognition of Indonesian bankruptcy orders made against the four respondents, each of whom is an Indonesian citizen. This allows the applicants to administer the respondents’ property in Singapore. The case provides banks with the assurance that bankruptcy orders obtained in Indonesia may be enforced in Singapore.

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).