In AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33, Justice Steven Chong, delivering the judgment of the Court, (1) overturned the decision of the High Court which allowed a creditor (VTB Bank) to proceed with its winding up petition against a debtor (AnAn), and (2) upheld the arbitration agreement pursuant to which the dispute underlying the debt should first be resolved.

Singapore’s new (the Omnibus Bill) was passed by parliament on 1 October 2018 and is expected to come into force later this year or in early 2019.

The Omnibus Bill, which was introduced to parliament on 10 September 2018, consolidates Singapore's corporate and personal insolvency and restructuring laws into a single enactment. It also generally updates the insolvency legislation and introduces a significant number of new provisions, particularly in respect of corporate insolvency.

In the first judgment under Singapore’s new ‘super priority’ DIP financing regime, the Singapore High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.

The Singapore regime is the first to import US Chapter 11-style DIP priority funding mechanisms into a jurisdiction with primarily English-law based corporate law and insolvency regimes.

The judgment discusses how Singapore provisions align with established principles under US Bankruptcy Code provisions and case law.

The case in question is CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2021 by the Singapore Court of Appeal.

The judgment addresses issues surrounding claims by a bank under assignments and other security documents over rights in and receivables under commodities supply contracts, and overturns the Singapore High Court decision in CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 117.

Summary

On 20 April 2020, Singapore’s Ministry of Law announced the commencement of Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the “Act”)  and the regulations for businesses and individuals to comply with (the “Regulations”) in order to seek a temporary suspension of eligible contractual obligations for an initial relief period between 20 April 2020 and 19 October 2020 (referred to as the “Relief Period”).

UPDATE #3 FROM THE RHTLAW CRISIS RESPONSETEAM:

Background

Pars Ram Brother (Singapore Company) obtained trade financing facilities from various banks, and pledged the goods financed by each bank under a pledge arrangement as security.

The Singapore Company entered into voluntary liquidation. The liquidator discovered that the Singapore Company had mixed the goods making it impossible to identify which goods were financed by which bank.

Issue

In its recent decision in Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 38, the Singapore High Court held that the security interests of lenders survived the commingling of assets, and that the assets should be divided among the secured lenders in proportion to their respective contributions.

Facts

Selvam LLC, the Singapore Law Practice of Duane Morris & Selvam LLP, recently succeeded in securing the dismissal of a suit brought by a liquidator in the High Court of Singapore against a defendant director in Prima Bulkship Pte Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Another v Lim Say Wan And Another [2016] SGHC 283.

In its recent judgment in Ting Shwu Ping (Administrator of the estate of Chng Koon Seng, Deceased) v Scanone Pte Ltd and another appeal [2016] SGCA 65, the Singapore Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in deciding whether to exercise its discretion under section 254(2A) of the Companies Act to order a buy-out instead of a winding-up where a party has applied to wind up the company under section 254(1)(f) (where the directors have acted in the affairs of the company in their own interest rather than the interests of members as a whole) or section 254(1)(i) (where it is ju