Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
In an uncertain time of lockdowns, social disconnection, virus contagion, and economic troubles, to live at all is a daunting challenge. To give life and raise a child in such times is a frightful responsibility. This song is a love letter from me as a parent to my firstborn child to not only survive, but to thrive, by living courageously on the power of hope, faith, and love.
Listen to the song at the platforms found here.
Significance: Singapore High Court considers factors to determine whether a person was engaged as an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the Central Provident Fund Act (CPFA).
Significance: Singapore High Court held that a joint bank account may be subject to a garnishee order under Order 49 of the Rules of Court. Where there is a strong prima facie basis for concluding that all the moneys in a joint account belong to the judgment debtor, the joint account can be garnished, subject to certain requirements.
Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 76
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal held that a multifactorial balancing exercise is to be adopted in determining whether a party ought to be released from its Riddick undertaking not to use documents ordered to be disclosed in civil proceedings for collateral purposes. The previous two-step test in Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555, viz. inter alia prejudice as overriding factor, is not to be applied.
Search orders (or Anton Piller orders) should be targeted and specific in their reach; the breadth of search orders should be carefully calibrated to meet the needs of the discovering party only, and no further.
Ang Chek Chin v ANS Import & Export Pte Ltd (formerly known as Ang Ngee Seng Import & Export Pte Ltd) [2020] SGHC 177
(Coram: Audrey Lim J)
Significance: Generally, a person who is not of the class of persons (company, creditor, contributory, official receiver or liquidator) should not be allowed to appear to be heard on the application to wind up the company. However, in appropriate circumstances, a person who would be directly affected by a winding up order may have the right to be added as a party to the proceedings.
S 285 of the Companies Act to summon a person is not meant for the purpose of determining whether a winding up should be granted but predicated on a winding up order made or provisional liquidator being appointed. The proper procedure for summoning witnesses is in s 257(2) of the CA, which allows the court on a winding up application to do certain things including directing a trial and directing that oral evidence be taken.
Significance: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) intends to pass a new omnibus statute to regulate all financial institutions (FIs), including (among others) virtual assets service providers (VASPs) or digital tokens (DT) service provider registered in Singapore but which perform services outside of Singapore.
Re Design Studio Group Ltd and other matters [2020] SGHC 148
Significance: The High Court granted the applicants super-priority to a debt arising from rescue financing under s 211E of the Companies Act, now s 67 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA“). Notably, the financing was a ‘roll-up’, i.e. using newly input post-petition finances to pay off existing pre-petition debt, such that the pre-petition debt is effectively paid off and “rolled up” into the super-priority post-petition debt.
Re PT MNC Investama TBK [2020] SGHC 149 – Foreign company held to have standing to apply for moratorium for a scheme of arrangement
Significance: Indonesian company successfully applied for a moratorium under section 211B of the Companies Act, now section 65 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA“) (which came into force on 31 July 2020). The court, per Aedit Abdullah J, was satisfied that the applicant has a substantial connection to Singapore as per s 351(1)(d) and s 351(2A) of the Companies Act, now s 246(e) of the IRDA.
WHAT TO DO IF A COMPANY THAT OWES ME MONEY HAS BEEN WOUND UP?
By Ronald JJ Wong and Stacey Lopez
In this article, we address some questions you may have if you are a creditor of a Singapore company that has entered or is entering into liquidation or winding up due to insolvency or otherwise.
Continue reading “Article: What to do if a company that owes me money has been wound up?”
Significance: The Singapore High Court dismissed the bank’s claim to enforce a Deed of Debenture as the bank failed to prove that the debenture was authentic. The bank failed to call as witnesses the persons who signed the debenture, choosing instead to rely on other factual witnesses (not expert witnesses) to give evidence on the signatories’ signatures.