This table provides an overview of the key developments in 2012 to date.

Where a plaintiff sought to claw-back payments made to the defendant on the basis that they amounted to an unfair preference, or a transaction at an undervalue, or had been made with intent to defraud, held that such a claim could not be arbitrated but had to be dealt with in court proceedings:

In Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) [2011] SGCA 21, the Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed, and elaborated on, the stance taken by the High Court concerning the relationship between arbitration and insolvency

In Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) [2011] SGCA 21, the Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed, and elaborated on, the stance taken by the High Court concerning the relationship between arbitration and insolvency.

In Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.

The case of Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 (“Petroprod Ltd”) is significant as the Singapore High Court decided that claims which arise from avoidance provisions in Singapore insolvency laws are non-arbitrable as they exist for the benefit of the general body of creditors as a whole.

In Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd & Anor v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd, one of the key issues which the Singapore High Court had to consider was whether the defendant was precluded from commencing winding up proceedings against the plaintiffs via section 254(2)(a) read with section 254(1)(e) of the Companies Act (the “CA”) on the basis of a debt that was founded on a foreign arbitration award which had not been enforced.

The Singapore High Court has considered for the first time whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration. The court held that such disputes are not suitable for arbitration due to the public interest involved.

BUSINESS RESCUE, RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY: THE COURT’S POWER TO SET ASIDE THE DISSENTING VOTE OF A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS RESCUE PROCEEDINGS If satisfied that it is reasonable and just to do so, a court may set aside a dissenting vote on a business rescue plan. In Collard v Jatara Connect (Pty) Ltd & Others [2017] ZAWCHC 45, the court did exactly that. Explaining his decision, Judge Dlodlo stated that there should be no reason to prefer a winding up application over a business rescue plan that will pay the employees of the company in full and result in a better return for creditors.

Section 133 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for a general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.

I wrote an article published in the June issue of Without Prejudice in which this question was considered. I criticised the then binding judgment of Chetty t/a Nationwide Electrical v Hart NO and Another (12559/2012) [20141 ZAKZDHC 9 (25 March 2014), as it was held in that case that arbitration proceedings do not constitute legal proceedings for purposes of section 133 of the Act.