In the latest decision in Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260, the Singapore courts have taken another step toward controlling the costs involved in insolvency and restructuring situations. In Kao, an application was made to the Singapore High Court to tax the fees of court-appointed receivers and managers. The application was heard before the learned Justice Steven Chong.

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.

The Defendant served 2 payment claims on the Plaintiff for work done up to end of November 2014 in the month of December 2014. It was common ground that the revised payment claim served on 26 December 2014 (“PC3R”), replaced the earlier payment claim dated 5 December 2014. • The Defendant then served a third payment claim (“PC4”) in the same payment claim period, i.e., on 30 December 2014, this time for work done up to end of December 2014. • PC3R was not withdrawn by the Defendant.

CASE UPDATE 11 November 2015 PROPOSED SYSTEM OF COSTS SCHEDULING FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260 INTRODUCTION This case concerns the quantum of professional fees reflected in a bill of costs issued by the receivers and managers (“R&Ms”) of Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Airtrust”).

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