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 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.
The global economy is growing at about 3% a year. This is roughly equal to the average growth rate for the last 50 years. However, growth predictions are ticking slightly downwards, mainly due to concerns around trade. And there are still high levels of government and corporate debt arising from the financial crisis and subsequent period of low interest rates. Nowhere is this better illustrated than China, which is forecast to overtake the US as the world's largest economy as early as this year, on some measures.
The Court of Appeal (CA) recently dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand arising out of the failure to pay margin calls in But Ka Chon v. Interactive Brokers LLC (02/08/2019, CACV 611/2018) [2019] HKCA 873, despite the presence of a mandatory arbitration clause. Obiter comments of the CA put into question the recent case law in Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449 (the “Lasmos case“) that a petition should “generally be dismissed” in the face of a mandatory arbitration clause.
Some key points
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
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter of THO Services Limited [2016] NSWSC 509 in which the Court exercised its general power to extend the voluntary administration moratorium period to a commercial arbitration.
BACKGROUND
The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.
On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.
In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports, the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).
Background
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.