Introduction

Welcome to the 3rd edition of Going Concerns where we strive to bring you the latest updates on restructuring and insolvency law. In this issue, we provide:

1. An update on the extent of financial disclosure that may be ordered against a company undergoing a scheme moratorium under s. 211B(6) of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap. 50);

2. A further commentary on the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill; 3. A commentary on the Singapore recognition process of foreign bankruptcies;

How the recent changes will impact restructurings of listed companies

In Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & another [2019] UKPC 36, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands that the appellant bank, SEB, was required to repay redemption payments held to be preferences notwithstanding that it had received the funds in the capacity of nominee, and had already distributed the funds to the beneficiaries without any ability to recover them.

Facts

The UK government has published a draft Finance Bill 2020, which includes a provision that, if enacted, will give HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) secondary preferential creditor status for certain taxes which a company has collected but failed to pay to HMRC on the date it enters insolvency.

New Priority Status

Directors and officers of private companies are responsible for managing and running business. This responsibility is not limited to disciplinary liability (such as termination of employment), but also involves civil law liability (such as payment of damages) as well as administrative and even criminal liability. In some cases, the liability may be broad and contain no reasonable exceptions that might be available in other jurisdictions. This LawFlash summarizes the extent of liability that company directors and officers could face under Kazakhstan law.

Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited [2019] 原诉法庭 1531 (判决日期2019年6月13日)

合资企业协议通常会包含如下条款：在发生特定事件（包括违约方破产）时，赋予无过错方将违约方排除在合资企业之外的权利。本案中，法庭对该类条款是否无效进行了考虑。

背景介绍

2013年11月，Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited (以下简称“该公司”)与Build King Construction Limited （以下简称“Build King”）签订了一份合资企业协议（“合资企业协议”）并成立了一家非法人型合资企业（“合资企业”），目的是向香港一个政府建设项目（“该项目”）提交投标。该公司和Build King在合资企业中持有的权益分别为65%和35%。香港政府于2016年6月22日将该合同授予给了该合资企业。

该公司于2017年陷入财务困境，并于2018年8月27日面临清盘的命运。

2018年12月13日，Build King行使了其在合资协议下的权利，以该公司破产为由，将该公司从合资企业中排除（“排除条款”）。

When a business entity that is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is closely related to another business entity, FERC takes the position that under some circumstances it may treat the two different legal entities as if they were one single entity.

The Singapore High Court recently issued the first-ever super-priority order for debts arising from rescue financing under Section 211E(1)(b) of the amended insolvency laws in the Companies Act. The decision shows that the court is open to adopting relatively unique deal structures, and could be a benefit for more business-centric solutions.

In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.

Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?

If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.

Practically all commercial transactions, including licenses, services agreements, and supply agreements, contain a provision that triggers termination rights, without notice, to a party whenever the other party files for bankruptcy or experiences other insolvency-related event. In Part 1 of a two-part series, we discuss how the commonly used termination-on-insolvency clauses are generally unenforceable despite their widespread use.

Standard Ipso Facto Provision