The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights certain key changes effected by the IRDA that are relevant to loan market participants.

Restrictions on ipso facto clauses

In Re PT MNC Investama TBK [2020] SGHC 149, the Singapore High Court provided guidance as to what is sufficient for a foreign company to establish standing to avail itself to the Singapore restructuring regime. Specifically, the factors expressed in the "substantial connection" test under the IRDA¹ are non-exhaustive and courts will consider other factors involving "some permanence" to permit foreign companies to restructure in Singapore.

Establishing a "substantial connection"

The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights the new restrictions on ipso facto provisions effected by the IRDA, which will be of particular interest to loan market participants.

Restrictions on ipso facto clauses

The landmark decision in Design Studio¹ introduces the US rescue financing concept of "roll-ups" to Singapore. This is the first case to consider the appropriateness of the roll-up feature in Singapore and is a pragmatic decision that is guided by a careful balance between the protection of creditors' interests and the rehabilitation of the debtor. This case also clarifies that super priority is not solely for new money financings.

The Design Studio case and the super priority regime

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

If you are an aviation professional in the COVID-19 era, you are likely learning about, or reacquainting yourself with, the restructuring process.

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.

It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.

Amendments to Article 9.1 of the Insolvency Law¹ ("Law 149-FZ") came into effect on 24 April 2020. The amendments provide that the benefit of the insolvency filing moratorium can be waived (the "moratorium waiver"). In addition, on 21 April 2020, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ("Russian SC") adopted clarifications (the "Clarifications"),² which, in particular, explain that the moratorium will apply if the debtor meets the formal criterion of being included in the list of persons covered by the moratorium ("protected debtors").

A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104: