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.

Financial difficulties are not uncommon in the course of a business’ lifespan, and though there may be the threat of insolvency, there are a number of alternative avenues through which a company may stave off winding up proceedings. In Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322, the Singapore High Court examined restraint orders against insolvency proceedings under s210 of the Companies Act, which deals with schemes of arrangement.

S210 prescribes a series of stages for the implementation of schemes of arrangement, including the following:

Applicability of the Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach to Executed Contracts

In a rare appeal before five judges in the Singapore Court of Appeal, two questions of great practical significance pertaining to contract law were authoritatively and definitively answered:-

Manharlal Trikamdas Mody E Anor v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Limited [2014] SGHC 123

The Singapore High Court in the case of Manharlal Trikamdas Mody E Anor v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Limited [2014] SGHC 123 decided a number of important issues in the fields of bankruptcy, assignment and ex parte applications.

Court’s power to summon persons connected with company in liquidation

Under section 285 of the Companies Act of Singapore (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), when a company is in liquidation, the Court may summon before it any person whom the Court considers capable of giving information concerning the promotion, formation, trade dealings, affairs or property of the company. Such person may be examined on oath regarding the above-mentioned matters and the Court may also require him to produce any books or papers in his custody or power relating to the company.

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

Between 16 January 2015 and 24 February 2015, the Ministry of Law (the “MinLaw”) conducted a public consultation to seek feedback on proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act (the “Act”) which principally sets out Singapore’s bankruptcy regime. Set out below is a summary of the key proposed amendments.

Institutional creditor must appoint private trustee

On 11 May 2015, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the “Bill”) was tabled in Parliament for first reading. Essentially, the Bill seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Act to create a more rehabilitative regime for bankrupts, ensure better utilisation of public resources and encourage creditors to exercise financial prudence when extending credit.

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.