The new laws have made Singapore more attractive 

The maritime and offshore (M&O) sector has endured almost a decade of distress since the global financial crisis. Overzealous ordering of newbuild vessels during the boom years, made available by cheap credit and the lure of increasing global demand, has left many sectors of the maritime industry oversaturated.

On February 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they had formally implemented Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (the "Guidelines"). The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York adopted the Guidelines on February 17, 2017.

Introduction

In Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and  New  Zealand Banking Group  Ltd  [2016] SGCA 23,  the Singapore Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether a statutory demand issued to a guarantor would be deemed defective and liable to be set aside if it did not include the details of a pledge given by the  principal debtor.

Delaware has long established itself as a welcoming jurisdiction for various legal purposes. It began as a center for company incorporation by providing a corporate law framework that was flexible and continuously updated for new developments. More recently, Delaware has applied those same principles (plus an expansive view of venue) to become a center for major chapter 11 reorganization filings.

Introduction

A statutory demand is an important step in the bankruptcy process, as it allows the creditor to initiate a bankruptcy application against the debtor. It is thus vital that any statutory demand issued must conform to the legislative requirements. In the recent case of Ramesh Mohandas Nagrani v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2015] SGHC 266, the Singapore High Court had to decide whether to set aside a statutory demand based on alleged irregularities in its contents, and touched on what makes a statutory demand invalid.

In establishing that a debtor had unfairly preferred one creditor over others, it was not necessary to show that the debtor knew that it was insolvent or imminently insolvent, and further that the pressure on a debtor to pay one creditor only vitiates the desire to prefer if there were good commercial reasons for the payment to be made: -- Jurong Technologies Industrial Corp Ltd (under judicial management) v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA [2010] SGHC 357 (Singapore, High Court, 9 December 2010)

InEcon Piling Pte Ltd v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 120, the Singapore High Court rejected the proposition that where a debtor is released from its debt, its other joint-debtors are also automatically released.

In Econ Piling Ltd v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 120, the Singapore High Court rejected the proposition that where a debtor is released from its debts, its other joint-debtors are also automatically released.

Introduction

When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator often needs approval from the Court or a liquidation committee before she can perform certain acts on the company’s behalf. The English High Court case of Gresham International Ltd v Moonie [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch) established that even where the liquidator has failed to obtain such approval before acting, the Court has the general discretion to grant retrospective approval.