In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.
The Facts – Briefly Stated
Background
On 12 March 2024, the Court dismissed an application by the Petitioner to reverse the adjudication of the Joint and Several Liquidators (“Liquidators”) over its proof of debt, which was based on a default judgment obtained against the Company (“POD”).
Following on from the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana (discussed here), the recent UK High Court (UKHC) decision in Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch), further considered the duty of directors to take into account the interests of creditors in certain circumstances.
On 29 January 2024, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a winding-up order against China Evergrande Group (“Company”), setting into motion one of Hong Kong’s largest liquidations. Parties at the hearing were represented by three senior counsel and three juniors from DVC.
The Company is the ultimate investment holding company of Evergrande Real Estate Group, which is one of China’s largest and most indebted property developers.
The High Court (Court) recently dismissed a petition seeking the winding up of a biofuel company (Company).
The ex tempore judgment is of note because it considers the standing of the Petitioner to bring the application and the consequences of a relevant witness not being cross-examined by the Petitioner on his affidavit evidence regarding the solvency of the Company.
Background
The scheme of arrangement (Rescue Plan) prepared by the examiner of Mac Interiors Limited (Company) has not been approved by the High Court following strong objections from the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue).
In its challenge, Revenue argued that there had been an error in “class composition” or, in other words, an error in the classification of creditors that voted on the Rescue Plan.
Class Composition
As recognized by Recorder Abraham Chan SC in the very first line of his Reasons for Decision inChina Evergrande Group v Triumph Roc International Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2432, it is no secret that the Plaintiff, China Evergrande Group, is in financial difficulties and further, in June 2022, winding up proceedings have been commenced.
Where a bankruptcy order has been made and the Official Receiver/trustee in bankruptcy has been appointed, how should their fees and expenses be dealt with if the bankruptcy order is later set aside following the debtor’s successful appeal? Further, if the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis?
These questions were recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCA 1099. Three key points can be gleaned from the judgment:-
2023年5月，香港高等法院夏利士法官第一次在诺熙资本有限公司诉北大方正集团有限公司 案 [2023] HKCFI 1350（下称“北大方正案”） 中讨论了维好协议的可执行性，此后，在2023年6月15日，夏利士法官就花旗集团诉清华紫光集团有限公司 [2023] HKCFI 1572一案（下称“清华紫光案”）作出了判决，该案关于清华紫光集团有限公司（下称“清华紫光”）的间接子公司发行的4.5亿美元债券，是夏利士法官就
Under the Euroclear or Clearstream system, companies which issue so-called “global notes” do not have direct contractual relationship(s) with the ultimate beneficial investors in those notes. Rather, the company’s books will show only one registered global note, and only one registered holder of the global note holding the note on behalf of the investors.