Introduction
Under Singapore bankruptcy law, when a person is adjudged bankrupt, any disposition of property made by him from the date of the bankruptcy application is void unless the court consents to or ratifies the disposition. However, will the court ratify the disposition of assets made pursuant to an order for division of assets in divorce proceedings, and in what circumstances will it do so? These were the issues considered in the Singapore High Court case of Ong Dan Tze Magdalene v Chee Yoh Chuang & Anor [2021] SGHC 129.
Introduction
In Aathar Ah Kong Andrew v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd [2021] SGCA 48, the Singapore Court of Appeal has struck out an appeal against a bankruptcy decision, thus bringing to a close the latest chapter in a long-running bankruptcy and voluntary arrangement dispute. The Court's decision highlights the importance of complying with the procedural requirements of bankruptcy proceedings and appeals, including observing the relevant timelines and obtaining the prior sanction of the Official Assignee ("OA").
Introduction
Under Singapore's restructuring and insolvency regime, a judicial manager has a degree of discretion in managing the affairs of the company in judicial management. However, the Court may intervene in a decision of a judicial manager if it is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the company's creditors or members.
Introduction
Introduction
In order to preserve a bankrupt's assets for distribution to creditors, any disposition of the bankrupt's property from the date of the bankruptcy application is considered void. However, this position is not absolute – the Court may consent to or ratify the disposition. In Sutherland, Hugh David Brodie v Official Assignee [2021] SGHC 65, the Singapore High Court set out the applicable principles that it would take into account when considering whether to ratify such disposition.
Introduction
Introduction
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") allows a company proposing or intending to propose a scheme of arrangement to its creditors to apply to the Singapore High Court ("Court") for a moratorium restraining proceedings against the company. The Court may also extend the moratorium on application to cover a subsidiary or holding company. This is to allow the company some breathing room to conduct its restructuring efforts.
Introduction
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses have been severely impacted. The Singapore government thus introduced the Simplified Insolvency Programme ("SIP"), which seeks to support micro and small companies ("MSCs") to restructure their debts or to wind up. The SIP has come into effect on 29 January 2021.
The SIP comprises two separate programmes which eligible MSCs may apply for:
Looking Back: 2020
2020 was a year of numerous regulatory changes, in particular to address the economic and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ongoing stringent measures were imposed in September as the second wave of the pandemic took hold in the country. Directives were issued to implement Stay-at-home measures and travel bans, and to give out allowances for employees insured under the Social Security Board ("SSB") in the private sectors.
Introduction
In Allenger, Shiona (Trustee-in-bankruptcy of the Estate of Pelletier, Richard Paul Joseph) v Pelletier, Olga and another [2020] SGHC 279, Rajah and Tann Singapore's Fraud, Asset Recovery and Investigations team led by partners Danny Ong and Yam Wern-Jhien, assisted by Bethel Chan and Chen Lixin, prevailed in a significant decision examining principles governing the grant of freezing injunctions against foreign defendants in the context of a cross-border insolvency and asset recovery claim.