In brief
Simplified Insolvency Programme (“SIP”)
In brief
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the IRDA) commenced on 30 July 2020. The IRDA is an omnibus legislation that consolidates Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws into a single legislation. The IRDA will replace the Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions in the Companies Act, each of which will be repealed. The IRDA also introduces new changes to the insolvency framework in Singapore.
Key changes to Singapore insolvency framework
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.
The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.
Background
Under Section 254(2)(a) of the Singapore Companies Act, a company can be wound-up by the court upon the application of a creditor who has served a statutory demand on the company for a debt of SGD 10,000 or more and the debt continues to remain unpaid for three weeks thereafter.
The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.
Changes to the Listing Rules and further consultation on enhancing the effectiveness of the regime
This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas.
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 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 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.1
IN BRIEF
Draft legislation unveiled