The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.
Background
Under Section 254(2)(a) of the Singapore Companies Act, a company can be wound-up by the court upon the application of a creditor who has served a statutory demand on the company for a debt of SGD 10,000 or more and the debt continues to remain unpaid for three weeks thereafter.
The troubles possibly faced by WeWork, the shared office space company, were well documented long before the global impact of COVID-19 was felt. WeWork, unlike other shared office companies, tends to use a more inherently risky business model, taking long leases and carving them up into short-term flexible letting arrangements. Whilst some shared office companies take on geared leases, passing up a percentage of revenue, and thus sharing the risk and reward, WeWork are understood to have a larger holding of fixed rent leases.
The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.
Another Hong Kong court decision has questioned whether the judgment in the leading case of Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426, may have gone too far when it suggested that an arbitration clause in an agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.
In AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33, Justice Steven Chong, delivering the judgment of the Court, (1) overturned the decision of the High Court which allowed a creditor (VTB Bank) to proceed with its winding up petition against a debtor (AnAn), and (2) upheld the arbitration agreement pursuant to which the dispute underlying the debt should first be resolved.
Thomas Williams, Ahmed Durrani and Umang Singh, Sultan Al-Abdulla & Partners
This is an extract from the 2020 edition of GAR’s Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review . The whole publication is available here.
Introduction
In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.
This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Beijing Kerry Centre South Tower, Ste. 823 No. 1 Guang Hua Rd., Chaoyang District Beijing 100020, China T: +86.10.5876.3500 F: +86.10.5876.3501 Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC 10 Collyer Quay #27-00 Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 T: +65 6389 3000 F: +65 6389 3099 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Roppongi Hills Mori Tower 24th Fl.
There is no bigger fan of adjudication than me. While not perfect, I nevertheless believe that adjudication has changed the construction industry for the better since its inception in 2004.