On 6 May 2014, the Ministry of Law ("MinLaw") issued its response to the feedback received from the public consultation on the final report (the "final report") of the Insolvency Law Review Committee (the "Committee") in relation to proposed recommendations affecting Singapore's personal and corporate insolvency regimes.
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.
Assenagon Asset Management S.A. v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited) [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch)
The Singapore High Court in Re Lehman Brothers Finance Asia Pte Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) [2012] SGHC 190 was confronted with the issue of whether debts of a company in a currency other than Singapore Dollars which are admitted in proof by its liquidators should be converted at the exchange rate prevailing on the date on which the company's statutory declaration was lodged, or on the date of the passing of the resolution placing the company in liquidation.
In Re Lehman Brothers Finance Asia Pte Ltd, the liquidators of Lehman Borthers Finance Asia Pte Ltd made an application to court to determine the relevant exchange rate for the conversion of foreign currency debts to Singapore Dollars in creditors' voluntary liquidation ("CVL")