InEcon Piling Pte Ltd v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 120, the Singapore High Court rejected the proposition that where a debtor is released from its debt, its other joint-debtors are also automatically released.

Lee Eng Beng SC, Nigel Pereira and Jonathan Lee from the Business Finance and Insolvency Practice of Rajah & Tann LLP successfully represented the Appellant in Chee Yoh Chuang and Anor (as Liquidators of Progen Engineering Pte Ltd) v Progen Holdings Ltd [2010] SGCA 31.

Payments made by a company to its holding company shortly before its winding up were held to have amounted to an unfair preference of the holding company and could be clawed-back from it

The Singapore High Court has considered for the first time whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration. The court held that such disputes are not suitable for arbitration due to the public interest involved.

In Econ Piling Ltd v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 120, the Singapore High Court rejected the proposition that where a debtor is released from its debts, its other joint-debtors are also automatically released.

The Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chee Yoh Chuang & Anor (as Liquidators of Progen Engineering Pte Ltd (in liquidation)) v Progen Holdings Ltd considered how the lawought to balance the rights of creditorswith the companies directors' desire to keep the company afloat when the company has financial difficulties and when payments were made to creditors.

In an application by Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd (the
“Company”) pursuant to section 210 of the Companies Act, the Company
sought an order to convene a meeting of creditors for the purposes of
approving a scheme of arrangement.

The case of Noerwest Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd [2010] SGHC144 involved the sale of the shares of a company which owned phosphate mining and production fascilities in the Sichuan province.

In the recent Singapore High Court decision of Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August, the court held, among other things, that the concept of overreaching applies to a sale exercised by a mortgagee pursuant to a contractual right in a charge (as opposed to a statutory power of sale) and that the winding up of a company does not frustrate the sale and purchase of shares in the company.

Where one of the factors behind an insolvent company granting its creditor security was a desire to put that creditor in a more advantageous position in the company's insolvency, held that the grant of security amounted to a unfair preference that rendered the security void: