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.
As business and commerce becomes increasingly cross-border in nature, it is important for businesses to have knowledge of restructuring and insolvency regimes of foreign jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asia region, given the close connection and links amongst the Southeast Asian states.
Introduction
Business relationships and transactions are usually based on contracts, and nothing is as binding on a party as signing on the dotted line. We would expect legal obligations to follow the signee. However, there are instances where signatures can be „disguised‟ or forged. In the case of The Bank of East Asia Limited v Sudha Natrajan [2015] SGHC 328, the Court had to decide whether the signature on a contract was indeed executed by the Defendant, or a forgery as alleged by the Defendant.
Introduction
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.
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.
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.