The Singapore High Court in Yap Guat Beng v Public Prosecutor laid down the sentencing guidelines for offences of an undischarged bankrupt acting as a director or being involved in the management of a company or a business.

Introduction

The Singapore High Court has confirmed that it will recognize the status and powers of a foreign liquidator in the liquidation of an unregistered foreign company in Singapore.

Life cycle of a company

Statistics from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority ("ACRA") of Singapore reveal that the increasing number of companies formed in Singapore (2004:17,151; 2009:26,414) is matched by a corresponding increase in the number of companies ceasing operations (2004:5,882; 2009:22,388).

In Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.

The case of Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 (“Petroprod Ltd”) is significant as the Singapore High Court decided that claims which arise from avoidance provisions in Singapore insolvency laws are non-arbitrable as they exist for the benefit of the general body of creditors as a whole.

In Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd & Anor v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd, one of the key issues which the Singapore High Court had to consider was whether the defendant was precluded from commencing winding up proceedings against the plaintiffs via section 254(2)(a) read with section 254(1)(e) of the Companies Act (the “CA”) on the basis of a debt that was founded on a foreign arbitration award which had not been enforced.

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.

The Singapore High Court has considered for the first time whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration. The court held that such disputes are not suitable for arbitration due to the public interest involved.

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.

In an application by Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd (the
“Company”) pursuant to section 210 of the Companies Act, the Company
sought an order to convene a meeting of creditors for the purposes of
approving a scheme of arrangement.

In the recent Singapore High Court decision of Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August, the court held, among other things, that the concept of overreaching applies to a sale exercised by a mortgagee pursuant to a contractual right in a charge (as opposed to a statutory power of sale) and that the winding up of a company does not frustrate the sale and purchase of shares in the company.