In the recent High Court judgment in VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd,(1) the plaintiff successfully obtained a winding-up order on a debtor company six weeks after the service of a statutory demand for an underlying debt of $250 million.
Dispute Resolution
Singapore
Newsletter
December 2018
In This Issue:
Key Legal Developments
1. Arbitration 2. Construction
3. Commercial Litigation
4. Restructuring & Insolvency
5. Reforms to Singapore's civil justice system
Upcoming Events
Key Resources
For more information, please contact:
Nandakumar Ponniya Principal +65 6434 2663 nandakumar.ponniya @bakermckenzie.com
Celeste Ang Principal +65 6434 2525 celeste.ang @bakermckenzie.com
CLIENT UPDATE 2016 FEBRUARY 1 © Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Key Legislative and Regulatory Developments in Singapore for the Year 2015 This Update provides a brief summary of the key statutory and regulatory developments in Singapore for the year 2015.
In the race between Singapore and Hong Kong to become the leading dispute resolution centre in Asia, Singapore may be taking the lead.
Singapore is forging ahead with plans to approve third party funding of disputes.
Draft legislation aimed at permitting third party funding of international arbitration (including related litigation and mediation), enforcement proceedings and proceedings to stay was published by Singapore’s Ministry of Law on 30 June 2016.
A milestone year
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.