In the latest decision in Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260, the Singapore courts have taken another step toward controlling the costs involved in insolvency and restructuring situations. In Kao, an application was made to the Singapore High Court to tax the fees of court-appointed receivers and managers. The application was heard before the learned Justice Steven Chong.

Introduction

The fees charged by insolvency practitioners can sometimes be a matter of contention, with different interested parties having differing expectations. Further, there is no comprehensive set of guidelines or regulations in Singapore setting out the basis on which insolvency practitioners should determine their fees, as well as the level of information on fees that should be provided to stakeholders. This sometimes leads to unhappiness as to the quantum and necessity of fees after the event.

The Defendant served 2 payment claims on the Plaintiff for work done up to end of November 2014 in the month of December 2014. It was common ground that the revised payment claim served on 26 December 2014 (“PC3R”), replaced the earlier payment claim dated 5 December 2014. • The Defendant then served a third payment claim (“PC4”) in the same payment claim period, i.e., on 30 December 2014, this time for work done up to end of December 2014. • PC3R was not withdrawn by the Defendant.

The Singapore High Court in Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan & Orsgranted an application by a company in liquidation for a Mareva injunction to restrain its former officers and other companies which they controlled from dissipating assets. The court also considered the question of whether the company in liquidation acted with sufficient urgency and diligence in commencing the action and applying for the Mareva injunction.

The parties

In a judgment handed down on 9 June 2015, the High Court of Singapore has for the first time approved a litigation funding arrangement for the benefit of a company in liquidation.

Summary

The key points arising from the judgment are:

The liquidator of a company has an obligation to find out what led to the company’s failure, and take steps to maximise recovery for the company’s creditors. He is usually a stranger to the company’s business, and starts off at a disadvantage, having no prior knowledge of the company’s affairs, and usually incomplete and unsatisfactory records. He also has to deal with previous directors and officers of the company who are often uncooperative and may themselves be complicit in the company’s demise.

On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.

Dispute Resolution Singapore Client Alert July 2015 Singapore High Court determines proprietary interests of customers of insolvent brokerage firm, MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd In the latest instalment arising out of the insolvency of MF Global, the Singapore High Court had to decide whether certain customers of the insolvent brokerage firm had any proprietary interests in the assets of the firm, and whether these assets were held on trust for these customers.

In the recent landmark decision of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 156, the Singapore High Court confirmed that litigation funding may, in the context of insolvency and under the appropriate circumstances, be permitted in Singapore.

Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 156