The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) will have a considerable impact on the enforcement of certain contracts and commercial disputes in Singapore for the next 6 to 12 months. The Act was passed by the Singapore Parliament, and commenced on the same day, 7 April 2020.
The key measures of the Act are:
The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain across the whole of the economy and raises the issue of how company directors should balance their obligations to shareholders and creditors while ensuring that they protect themselves from any personal liability.
Companies and their directors in the following sectors of the economy face difficult decisions:
Changes to Singapore's statutory regime for schemes of arrangement, which came into effect in May 2017, are aimed at placing Singapore on the map as an international debt restructuring hub.
On April 1, 2012 Drydocks World LLC (DDW) and its subsidiary Drydocks World — Dubai LLC (DDW Dubai), a Dubai- and Asia-based ship building and repair company that is wholly owned by Dubai World, became the first company to commence a reorganization proceeding in the Special Tribunal1 (the Tribunal) created by Dubai Decree No. 57 for 2009 (Decree 57) and avail itself of Decree 57’s integrated legal framework.
New legislation suspends contractual obligations for the next six months with related disputes subject to a separate dispute resolution system.
On 7 April 2020, the Singapore Parliament passed the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) offering temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations because of COVID-19 and providing temporary amendments to bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The Act went into effect immediately.
Legislative changes in Singapore and the EU introduce pre-insolvency processes facilitating non-consensual debt restructurings or cram downs comparable to those already available in London and New York. In particular, the EU Recast Insolvency Regulation (the "Recast Regulation") came into effect on June 26, 2017, enhancing cross-border co-operation for applicable insolvency proceedings starting in the EU after that date.*
Issue 6 | April 2017 Disputes Digest 2 | Disputes Digest Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (litigation) Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (arbitration) Singapore targets effi ciency in investment arbitration proceedings Does the MasterCard class action mark the dawn of a new era in UK litigation?
Budniok v Adjudicator, Insolvency Service [2017] EWHC 368 (Ch)
Chief Registrar Baister overturned the Adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the Debtor's COMI was an issue.
Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the Adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.
ECJ decides that rights in rem should be interpreted in accordance with German law, despite insolvency proceedings having been opened in France
In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").
Legend International Holdings Inc (in Liquidation) v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited [2016] VSCA 151
The Australian Court of Appeal refused an appeal against a winding up order made in relation to Legend in Australia where Chapter 11 proceedings were on foot in the United States.
Click here to read more...