Introduction

The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.

Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.

Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.

Singapore’s Court of Appeal has just laid down guidance on how professionals should approach their fee engagements with clients.¹ The judgment reveals an expectation of strict adherence to the terms of the letter of engagement. It also serves as an admonishment to retain a detailed inventory of the work done.

Background

As part of the Singapore Budget 2013, the Ministry of Law has proposed a major review of Singapore's bankruptcy and insolvency regime, with a particular focus on making it easier to discharge personal bankruptcies due to business failure or unsecured consumer credit.

The Insolvency Law Reform Committee will also be finalizing its report on the Omnibus Insolvency Bill soon. This Bill is intended to address certain perceived weaknesses in the existing personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency mechanisms, resulting in a better and more efficient regime.

The Singapore High Court in Beluga Chartering GmbH (in liq) v Beluga Projects (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor considered whether Singapore liquidators of Singapore-registered subsidiary companies were able to repatriate the applicant's ("Beluga Chartering") Singapore assets to Germany, where Beluga Chartering was incorporated.

This case involved a foreign company, Beluga Chartering GmbH ("Beluga") that had both creditors and assets in Singapore. However, as it had not carried on business here, it had not been required to register as a branch.

In March this year, the High Court in Beluga Chartering¹ addressed a unique provision of Singapore's Companies Act that requires local liquidators to ring-fence a foreign company's assets for the settlement of the debts it incurred in Singapore before they transmit its assets to overseas liquidators and creditors. This decision exploring the implications of section 377 on Singapore's cross-border insolvency legal framework is timely considering the ongoing review of Singapore's insolvency laws.

A summary of the factual background

The term “globalisation” is associated with expansion and the free movement of capital and resources. Funds raised in Country A can be invested in a variety of different countries for better returns. In times of economic expansion, it can be unfashionable to consider insolvency issues. This may explain why insolvency practitioners find themselves holding many discussions among themselves.

The Ministry of Law (“MinLaw”) is conducting a public consultation on key recommendations made in a final report by the Insolvency Law Review Committee ( the “Committee”) in relation to Singapore’s personal and corporate insolvency regimes. The public consultation period runs from 7 October 2012 to 2 December 2013.

Alvin Yeo SC and  Melvin Lum acted for the Second Intervener, Thomas Chan, in his claim for $3,275,935.81 as interest for the late completion of the sale of a property ("Property").