In this eleventh edition of the Going concerns, we touch upon the clarity provided by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the recognition of foreign solvent liquidations in Singapore, a potential new tool against debtors defrauding creditors, and an update on the sanction of an administrative convenience class in the Singapore High Court.

We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Going concerns and we look forward to your continued support in the coming editions of the same. As usual, please feel free to contact us should you like to learn more on any topic.

Content

Businesses worldwide are feeling the pressure of historic inflation and rising interest rates. UK insolvencies have reached their highest level since 2009, while numbers are also increasing in Australia, Canada and China.

This article examines the latest restructuring and insolvency trends – including zombie companies, landmark court decisions, and new legislation in Canada and the EU.

‘Zombie companies’ could lead to a wave of insolvencies

The High Court in Singapore has ordered the winding up of Hodlnaut Pte Ltd, a Singapore based cryptocurrency lending and borrowing platform, as it was cash flow insolvent given that the cryptocurrency funds held by the company from various creditors count as ‘debts’ within the meaning of s125(1)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA).

Singapore’s highest court has definitively held that foreign insolvency, restructuring or liquidation proceedings concerning solvent companies should be recognised in Singapore (Re Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32), overturning a first instance decision taking the contrary view.

Introduction

Restructuring and insolvency proceedings often span different jurisdictions, requiring the cooperation of the respective countries' insolvency regimes. In its role as an international hub for restructuring and insolvency, Singapore has in place a framework for the effective management of cross-border insolvency proceedings. This takes the form of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which has been enacted in Singapore in an adapted form ("SG Model Law").

Introduction                                                

From 1 November 2023, bankruptcy estates are required to be administered by Private Trustees in Bankruptcy ("PTIBs"), except for cases where the Official Assignee ("OA") considers there is public interest and consents to be appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

In 2018, Singapore enacted the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA 2018), which streamlined its debt restructuring regime by consolidating provisions previously set out in various statutes into a piece of omnibus legislation.

Among other developments, the IRDA 2018 built upon existing provisions relating to pre-packed schemes of arrangement (i.e. pre-packed schemes) and enhanced pre-packed schemes as a viable tool in Singapore’s arsenal of debt restructuring mechanisms.

1. Since 2017, Singapore has continually revamped and enhanced its corporate debt restructuring mechanisms. One of these enhancements is the introduction of the cross-class cramdown in Singapore’s Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA”).

2. The cross-class cramdown is a powerful tool which is intended to prevent minority dissentients from blocking the passage of a scheme of arrangement. It can bind entire classes of dissenting creditors, as long as at least 1 class has voted in favour of the scheme, among other requirements.

1. A crucial element to any scheme of arrangement is the question of how creditors are to be classed for voting purposes. In this regard, while the proper test for the classification of scheme creditors is well established, the increasing sophistication of restructuring deals have resulted in recent decisions that reveal finer aspects to the implementation of this test. This article explores the practical issues that appear to be arising with increasing frequency in relation to the composition of creditor classes. 

I. Introduction

In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.