The rules governing corporate and personal insolvency in Singapore are set out in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), which includes mechanisms to reverse transactions that unfairly deplete a company's assets prior to insolvency, thereby protecting creditors' interests by allowing the value of the company’s assets to be maximised for distribution to its creditors on insolvency.
In 2018, Singapore enacted the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA 2018), which streamlined its debt restructuring regime by consolidating provisions previously set out in various statutes into a piece of omnibus legislation.
Among other developments, the IRDA 2018 built upon existing provisions relating to pre-packed schemes of arrangement (i.e. pre-packed schemes) and enhanced pre-packed schemes as a viable tool in Singapore’s arsenal of debt restructuring mechanisms.
This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.
A. Overview
In Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 119, the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) had the opportunity to consider the applicable law with regard to penalty and liquidated damages (“LD”) clauses.
This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.
Impact of COVID-19 on corporate failures and directors’ conduct
Given the uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, it is anticipated that the number of formal insolvencies in Singapore will trend upwards across numerous sectors as companies see a decline in their financial position.
This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.
The coronavirus pandemic has left companies increasingly concerned about the possibility of winding-up as a result of a failure to pay debts. In a situation where a party’s disputed debt is subject to an arbitration clause, the debtor may wish to seek a stay or dismissal of any winding-up applications commenced against it before the court in favour of arbitration.
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.
Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).
On April 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane issued an opinion in the Waterford Wedgwood bankruptcy discussing at length one of the defenses available to preference defendants. The opinion turns upon the scope of “ordinary business terms,” the objective prong of the ordinary course of business defense.
A recent opinion out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) serves as a reminder to secured creditors to steer clear of conduct that a bankruptcy court may deem inequitable and provide the court with cause to limit the secured creditor’s credit bid rights. In In re The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co.