The case of Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 (“Petroprod Ltd”) is significant as the Singapore High Court decided that claims which arise from avoidance provisions in Singapore insolvency laws are non-arbitrable as they exist for the benefit of the general body of creditors as a whole.

In Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd & Anor v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd, one of the key issues which the Singapore High Court had to consider was whether the defendant was precluded from commencing winding up proceedings against the plaintiffs via section 254(2)(a) read with section 254(1)(e) of the Companies Act (the “CA”) on the basis of a debt that was founded on a foreign arbitration award which had not been enforced.

When a company enters financial difficulty, it faces conflicting interests. On the one hand, it must continue with commercial transactions to preserve and hopefully rehabilitate the company; on the other, it must respect its creditors’ rights by not making payments which may be seen as preferring certain creditors.

Patrick Ang, Chin Wei Lin and Jonathan Lee from the Business Finance & Insolvency Practice of Rajah & Tann LLP acted for Standard Chartered bank in successfully overturning a decision of the High Court in Standard Chartered Bank v Loh Chong Yong Thomas [2010] SGCA 2.

The key issue arising in Econ Piling Ltd and Anor v Sambo E&C Pte Ltd and another matter was whether the join liability of Company A as a partner of Company B in a joint venture partnership was released as a result of a scheme of arrangement which released the debts and liabilities of Company B.

Introduction

When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator often needs approval from the Court or a liquidation committee before she can perform certain acts on the company’s behalf. The English High Court case of Gresham International Ltd v Moonie [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch) established that even where the liquidator has failed to obtain such approval before acting, the Court has the general discretion to grant retrospective approval.

Covid-19 has brought about much uncertainty for businesses worldwide and it is timely for a special edition of Going Concerns to provide a "survival guide" in the following jurisdictions Singapore, the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). This special edition will also touch on recent legislation and stimulus packages introduced by governments of the above (where applicable) in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, which will impact both creditors and debtors.

Survival guide

The Singapore Court may grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign court proceedings, but the Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant, and a substantive claim must nevertheless be brought against the defendant in Singapore

In Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and

another [2019] SGCA 50 (“China Medicalâ€), the Singapore Court of Appeal

(“CoAâ€) confirmed that the Singapore Court may grant freezing (or Mareva)

injunctions in support of foreign court proceedings. However, the Singapore

Hong Kong’s restructuring scene is one of the most cross-border in the world, with three-quarters of its listed companies incorporated offshore and most restructurings having a mainland China connection. But the territory still lacks a statutory regime for cross-border recognition – as recently brought into focus in the restructuring of Singaporean engineering company CW Group. What does this mean for international insolvencies in the region?

Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd [2011] SGCA 42