On 1 October 2018, the Singapore Parliament passed the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill (the "Bill"), an omnibus legislation which will consolidate Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and restructuring laws, which are currently under separate legislative regimes.
The overhaul follows recent amendments to the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, and is part of a wider effort to boost the debt restructuring ecosystem in Singapore.
Key provisions introduced by the bill
Dispute Resolution
Singapore
Newsletter
December 2018
In This Issue:
Key Legal Developments
1. Arbitration 2. Construction
3. Commercial Litigation
4. Restructuring & Insolvency
5. Reforms to Singapore's civil justice system
Upcoming Events
Key Resources
For more information, please contact:
Nandakumar Ponniya Principal +65 6434 2663 nandakumar.ponniya @bakermckenzie.com
Celeste Ang Principal +65 6434 2525 celeste.ang @bakermckenzie.com
In a noteworthy decision to participants in the energy industry, the High Court of England & Wales examined what constitutes a valid liquidated damages clause in the event of delayed completion of a solar project. And last week in Singapore, the High Court considered the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions on termination of power purchase agreements.
Background
Pars Ram Brother (Singapore Company) obtained trade financing facilities from various banks, and pledged the goods financed by each bank under a pledge arrangement as security.
The Singapore Company entered into voluntary liquidation. The liquidator discovered that the Singapore Company had mixed the goods making it impossible to identify which goods were financed by which bank.
Issue
In the first judgment under Singapore’s new ‘super priority’ DIP financing regime, the Singapore High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.
The Singapore regime is the first to import US Chapter 11-style DIP priority funding mechanisms into a jurisdiction with primarily English-law based corporate law and insolvency regimes.
The judgment discusses how Singapore provisions align with established principles under US Bankruptcy Code provisions and case law.
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 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.
Introduction
For the first time, the Singapore High Court has ruled on whether to grant ‘super priority’ for debts arising from rescue financing under the amended insolvency laws via the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (the Act). ‘Super priority’ was one of the central topics discussed in Dentons Rodyk’s series of seminars for financial institution clients held in September 2017 over 3 days.
上周，曾在新加坡证券交易所有限公司（“新交所”）上市的Otto Marine有限公司（以下简称“Otto Marine”）提出申请将公司提交司法托管（“司法托管申请”）并请求任命临时司法管理人。
该公司系总部为新加坡的Otto Marine集团的核心成员，Otto Marine集团拥有约70家子公司，联营公司和间接子公司，在全球拥有622名员工。 Otto Marine集团从事投资控股，船舶建造，维修和服务，船舶租赁和租赁以及离岸服务业务。 Otto Marine的独任董事暨实际股东是马来西亚大亨拿督斯里丘志肖。
司法托管申请发生于2015年约1.83亿美元的亏损以及2016年10月自新加坡证券交易所自愿退市之后。根据该公司截至2017年12月31日的管理账目初稿，本财政年度累计录得亏损约8100万美元。 在支持司法托管申请的法院文件中，该公司估计总负债约为8.77亿美元，并宣称自己无力偿还债务，并援引大华银行提交的清盘申请和各种未决执行申请等事宜。
根据法庭文件，拿督斯里丘志肖本人似乎是该公司最大的单一债权人，其本人或其附属公司享有2.08亿美元债权。