Introduction

The law is constantly developing to fit the ever-changing world. Most recently, with the digitalisation of the commercial landscape and the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and metaverse-related businesses, the courts have had to apply or adapt the law to deal with novel situations. This was the case in Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 98, where the Singapore High Court had to apply restructuring and insolvency law in the context of a cryptocurrency-related business.

Globalisation means that the effects of a business entering insolvency proceedings rarely stay within the territorial confines of a single jurisdiction; one need only look to the recent cryptocurrency bankruptcies as evidence of this. Cross-border insolvencies are no longer the preserve of large multinational corporation failures. Globalisation and the advent of digitisation mean that even small enterprises have customers, assets, and suppliers in multiple countries. This is particularly so across Asia.

In Re Zipmex Pte Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 88, the Singapore High Court imported into the Singapore restructuring regime the US concept of an "administrative convenience class" in a scheme voting exercise. This concept allows debtors to obtain an approval from a large number of low value creditors without those creditors being involved in the voting exercise. This reduces the administrative burden on restructuring entities.

There are unique risks that lenders should consider when extending credit to a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). The rights that a lender might expect to have when lending to an incorporated company are not necessarily the same as when lending to a REIT.

Introduction

When a company enters financial trouble, the Singapore restructuring and insolvency framework provides a number of avenues through which the rights of the company's creditors may be addressed. Amongst these avenues, receivers may be appointed pursuant to an instrument to enforce a secured creditor's rights. Judicial managers may also be appointed by the Court to manage the business and assets of the company.

Re Kirkham International Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2023] SGHC 19 (Kirkham) has important practical implications for liquidators. The General Division of the High Court (High Court) held that a liquidator’s appointment of solicitors, when approval is required under section 144 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), cannot be retrospectively authorised.

Background

In the tenth edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood’s restructuring and insolvency team covers the innovative attempt by a distressed company to shut out low-valued creditors in a scheme of arrangement, the utility of the Singapore recognition of foreign insolvencies regime to assist international liquidations, and the factors which the Singapore Courts will consider when deciding whether to stay a bankruptcy application. It has been a pleasure preparing these articles over the past five years and a big thank you to our readers!

Content

Introduction

Singapore's bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been undergoing a structured reform in order to modernise the insolvency regime. As part of this reform, the personal bankruptcy regime has been moving towards administration by Private Trustees in Bankruptcy ("PTIBs") instead of by the Official Assignee ("OA").

Singapore has earned a budding reputation as a hub for debt restructuring and insolvency in Asia, with its transparent legal system and judicial expertise. This growth can also be attributed to enduring efforts to innovate and reform.

To enhance Singapore as a forum of choice in international restructuring and insolvency proceedings, the Rules of Court were amended with effect from 1 October 2022 to allow restructuring and insolvency matters which are international and commercial in nature to now be heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC").

Introduction

The questions of who has priority over a bankrupt's assets and precisely when the priority arises are important ones in bankruptcy. For judgment creditors who have already taken steps towards enforcement, the answer affects whether they will have prior rights to the bankrupt's property, ahead of the bankrupt's other creditors.