Where a plaintiff sought to claw-back payments made to the defendant on the basis that they amounted to an unfair preference, or a transaction at an undervalue, or had been made with intent to defraud, held that such a claim could not be arbitrated but had to be dealt with in court proceedings:

In Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) [2011] SGCA 21, the Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed, and elaborated on, the stance taken by the High Court concerning the relationship between arbitration and insolvency

In Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) [2011] SGCA 21, the Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed, and elaborated on, the stance taken by the High Court concerning the relationship between arbitration and insolvency.

Where a contract contains a non-assignment clause, a liquidator may not, as part of his liquidation of an insolvent company's assets, assign the contract to a third party without first seeking the consent of the contracting counterparty:

-- Owners of Strata Plan 5290 v CGS & Co Pty Ltd (Australia, New South Wales, Court of Appeal, 30 June 2011)

A winding up application may be resisted by reason of a cross-claim against the petitioning creditor.

"Subject to contract" clauses are often used in commercial transactions to indicate that an agreement is incomplete until the terms of a formal contract have been settled

The companies at the heart of these two cases were Jurong Technologies Industrial Corporation Ltd ("JTIC") and its wholly owned subsidiary Jurong Hi-Tech Industries Pte Ltd ("JHTI") (collectively, the "Companies").

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: