I INSOLVENCY LAW, POLICY AND PROCEDURE
i Statutory framework and substantive law
Corporate insolvency in Singapore is primarily governed by the Companies Act, supplemented by the Companies (Winding Up) Rules and the Companies Regulations. Certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and the Bankruptcy Rules also apply to corporate insolvency in Singapore.
Apart from the general corporate insolvency provisions, Singapore has also provided for industry-specific insolvency or winding up rules for certain industries, including the banking industry. These rules apply to the relevant industry in addition to the insolvency provisions under general company law.
A new, omnibus Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) (which consolidates the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency provisions in the Companies Act into one statute) has been passed by Parliament. It is anticipated that the IRDA will come into effect later this year, once the relevant subsidiary legislation is finalised.
The IRDA is a culmination of wide-ranging reforms that began in May 2017, when the Companies Act was amended to implement significant changes to the insolvency regime with the stated objective of attracting more foreign debtors to restructure their debts in Singapore, thereby positioning the state as an international centre for debt restructuring. The IRDA will build on the reforms implemented in 2017.
The Companies Act provides for a range of insolvency and reorganisation options for companies in distress, namely liquidation, judicial management and receivership, as well as schemes of arrangement between companies and their creditors and shareholders.
In October 2013, the Insolvency Law Review Committee (ILRC) (appointed by the Ministry of Law in December 2010) issued a report, setting out various recommendations on the provisions of the new insolvency statute to be enacted. The recommendations by the ILRC included proposals to enhance the insolvency and reorganisation mechanisms, and the management of cross-border insolvency issues.
Subsequently, the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (DRC) was established and issued its recommendations on 20 April 2016. The recommendations of the ILRC and the DRC were broadly accepted by the Singapore government, leading to the following more significant amendments to the Companies Act in May 2017:
- amended jurisdictional requirements to give foreign companies increased access to the debt restructuring regime in Singapore;
- enhanced moratoriums granted by the Singapore courts in support of restructurings which can be expressed to have in personam worldwide effect and be extended to related entities of a debtor company;
- improved features of the judicial management and scheme of arrangement regimes in Singapore;
- the introduction of provisions governing grants of super-priority to lenders who provide much needed rescue financing to debtors-in-possession during the restructuring process; and
- the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the Model Law).
The IRDA, upon coming into operation, will introduce, among other things:
- restrictions on the operation of ipso facto contractual clauses (i.e., clauses automatically terminating or modifying a contract upon the occurrence of certain insolvency-related triggering events) during the course of a scheme of arrangement or judicial management;
- a process for creditors to place a company under judicial management without having to apply to court;
- early dissolution of a company if the realisable assets of the company are insufficient to cover the winding-up expenses and the affairs of the company do not require any further investigation;
- express powers of a liquidator or judicial manager to assign the proceeds of certain actions that are instituted to recover monies or assets for the company, facilitating the procurement of third-party funding for such actions; and
- a new licensing and regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners such as liquidators, judicial managers and receivers.
iii Insolvency procedures
Liquidation is also referred to as winding up. Singapore law provides for both compulsory winding up (or winding up by the court) and voluntary winding up (consisting of creditors' voluntary winding up or members' voluntary winding up).2
The objective of compulsory winding up is to realise a company's assets and distribute them to creditors in order of priority. Any company can be compulsorily wound up, regardless of whether it is registered in Singapore, provided that it has some connection with Singapore and meets the relevant criteria under the Companies Act. For example, a foreign company may be wound up under the Companies Act if a creditor can demonstrate that the company's centre of main interests (COMI) is in Singapore or that the company has substantial assets in Singapore.3
A creditors' voluntary winding up aims at winding up a company without reference to the courts. The creditors have the right to nominate a liquidator. If they do not, a liquidator will be nominated by the company.4 Any company registered in Singapore can be wound up in this way.
The objective of a members' voluntary winding up is to wind up a company when its shareholders no longer wish it to continue in business, to pay all the company's creditors in full and to distribute any surplus to the shareholders. Members' voluntary winding up can only be effected when the company is solvent. The company has the right to appoint a liquidator in a members' voluntary winding up.5
A provisional liquidator will be appointed by the High Court pending determination of the winding-up application6 if the applicant can demonstrate a prima facie case for the granting of a winding-up order and the High Court is satisfied in the circumstances of the case that a provisional liquidator should be appointed.
The provisional liquidator is obliged to preserve the status quo so as to protect the company's assets. A provisional liquidator's powers are prescribed by the court order appointing him or her.7
Upon the making of a winding-up order or the appointment of a provisional liquidator, all the property of the company vests in the liquidator (or the provisional liquidator as the case may be).8
A company or its creditors may apply to the High Court for an order that the company be placed under judicial management if the company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts, and there is a reasonable probability of rehabilitating the company or of preserving all or part of its business as a going concern, or that otherwise the interests of creditors would be better served than by resorting to a winding up.9
Any company, including foreign companies, can be placed under judicial management provided that the High Court is satisfied that the company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts, and it considers that the making of the judicial management order would be likely to achieve one or more of the following purposes:
- the survival of the company, or the whole or part of its undertaking as a going concern;
- the approval under Sections 210 or 211I of the Companies Act of a compromise or scheme of arrangement; or
- a more advantageous realisation of the company's assets than would be effected by a winding up.10
The judicial manager has the power to manage the business and property of the company.11 In addition, during the period for which a judicial management order is in force:
- the company cannot be wound up;
- no receiver or manager of the whole of the company's property can be appointed;
- there is a moratorium on legal proceedings against the company; and
- no security can be enforced against the company's property except with the consent of the judicial manager or with leave of the court.12
An interim judicial manager may be appointed by the court pending determination of the judicial management application.
The High Court may order the appointment of a receiver, or a receiver and manager, in 'all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient'.13 The Court has relatively wide discretion to make such appointments and usually does so when there is genuine concern that a company's assets are in jeopardy and may be dissipated to the detriment of the debenture holders.
Often, a secured creditor may also enforce its security rights against the debtor company by appointing a receiver, or a receiver and manager. A receiver's primary duty is to realise the assets for the benefit of the secured creditors that appointed him or her, or in the case of a receiver and manager, to manage and realise the assets that come within the ambit of his or her appointment.
Schemes of arrangement
A scheme of arrangement is often used as a means of corporate rescue. It is a binding arrangement between a company and its creditors or shareholders, who may, among other things, seek to compromise the company's debts and liabilities.14
A scheme of arrangement is binding on all creditors or classes of creditors, or shareholders or classes of shareholders, as the case may be, if:
- a majority in number representing three-quarters in value of those creditors, or classes of creditors or shareholders, or classes of shareholders, agrees to the scheme of arrangement and the High Court approves the scheme of arrangement;15 or
- a majority in number representing three-quarters in value of the creditors meant to be bound by the scheme of arrangement have agreed to the scheme of arrangement, and the High Court is satisfied that the compromise does not discriminate unfairly between two or more classes of creditors, and is fair and equitable to each dissenting class (commonly known as a 'cross-class cramdown').16
A scheme of arrangement will not be fair and equitable to a dissenting class if, among other reasons, a creditor in the class that has dissented to the scheme would receive an amount that is lower than that creditor is estimated by the High Court to be most likely to receive if the scheme of arrangement does not pass.17
The Singapore Court of Appeal appears to have adopted an expansive view of the scheme jurisdiction, recently observing that when one company has guaranteed a debt owed by a second company, a scheme of arrangement in respect of the guarantor's debts can validly compromise the debts of the primary obligor if there is a sufficient nexus or connection between the debts.18 The decision may be significant for group restructurings as it facilitates the use of a scheme of arrangement in respect of one group company to compromise related debts (particularly, corporate guarantees) owed by other group companies.
iv Starting proceedings
Compulsory winding up
An application may be presented to the High Court for an order that a company be wound up compulsorily if it is unable to pay its debts.19 A company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts when:
- it is served with a statutory demand for a sum in excess of S$10,000 and it is unable, within three weeks of the date of service of the statutory demand, to pay the sum or to secure or compound the sum to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor;20 or
- it is unable to pay its debts if execution or other process issued on a judgment in favour of a creditor of the debtor company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.21
Generally, a winding-up application can be presented to the High Court by either the company or the company's creditors.22 Winding up is deemed to have commenced when the winding-up application is made.23
After the application is made, the company, or any creditor or contributory, may apply to the High Court to stay any further proceedings in any pending actions against the company.24
Creditors' voluntary winding up
A company's directors can begin the procedure to wind up the company voluntarily if they believe that there is no real prospect of its debts being paid.
A statutory declaration of the company's inability to carry on business by reason of its liabilities25 and a statement of affairs pertaining to the company must be filed with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).26 Within one month of the date of the statutory declaration, the company must hold (1) an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of shareholders to pass a special resolution for winding up by at least 75 per cent of votes cast,27 and (2) a meeting of the company's creditors within one day of the special resolution28 to appoint a liquidator (and possibly a committee of inspection).29 Voluntary winding up is deemed to have commenced when the resolution for voluntary winding up is passed or on the date of the making of the statutory declaration in the situation where a provisional liquidator is appointed before the resolution for voluntary winding up is passed.30
Members' voluntary winding up
The company's directors must make a statutory declaration of solvency within the five weeks before the EGM of the company's shareholders is convened to vote to pass the special resolution to wind up the company.31 The directors must also prepare a statement of affairs.32 At an EGM (convened with at least 21 days' notice), the shareholders must pass a special resolution to resolve to wind up the company voluntarily and appoint a liquidator.33
In the event that the liquidator in a members' voluntary winding up forms the view that the company is unable to make payment of its liabilities as originally envisaged in the statutory declaration of solvency, the members' voluntary winding up can no longer proceed as such. The liquidator may then summon a meeting of the company's creditors and lay before them the company's statement of assets and liabilities. At this meeting, the creditors will also have the option to appoint some other person to act as liquidator. Thereafter, the winding up shall proceed in the form of a creditors' voluntary winding up.34
An application for a judicial management order may be made by a company, a creditor (or creditors jointly), including a contingent or prospective creditor, or a director of the company if authorised by a resolution of the members or of the board of directors.35
There is an automatic moratorium on all proceedings against the company starting from the time the application for judicial management is made until the High Court makes a determination on the application. The moratorium is wide-ranging and restrains, among other things, the passing of a resolution for winding up the company and enforcement actions against any charge or security held over the company's property, except with the leave of the High Court.36
Following the May 2017 amendments to the Companies Act, the High Court may also grant the application despite the opposition of a person who has appointed or is entitled to appoint a receiver and manager of substantially the whole of the company's property under the terms of any debenture, unless the prejudice that would be caused to such person if the order was made would be disproportionately greater than the prejudice that would be caused to unsecured creditors of the company if the application were dismissed.37 This represents an alteration of the absolute veto right such a person previously enjoyed.
Holders of debentures that contain an express power to appoint a receiver, or a receiver and manager, can make such an appointment privately. The powers of the receiver, or receiver and manager, are prescribed by the terms of the debenture.
Where the debentures do not provide for the appointment of a private receiver, or receiver and manager, the holders of the debentures may make an application for the High Court to appoint a receiver.38
Scheme of arrangement
An application to the High Court for approval of a scheme of arrangement may be made by a company, any creditor or member of the company, or the liquidator of the company (where the company is being wound up).39 The application is made by way of originating summons supported by an affidavit.
A company may apply for a moratorium to restrain or stay proceedings against the company if it is proposing a scheme of arrangement.40 An automatic 30-day stay of all proceedings against the company arises upon the filing of an application for a moratorium under Section 211B of the Companies Act.41 The moratorium may also restrain the appointment of a receiver or receiver and manager. If a company has already proposed a scheme of arrangement, in applying for a moratorium it is required to provide evidence of creditor support for the proposed scheme and an explanation of the importance of that support to the proposed scheme.42 If a company intends to propose a scheme of arrangement but has yet not done so, the company applying for a moratorium is required to provide evidence of creditor support for the moratorium sought,43 a brief description of the intended scheme and sufficient information relating to the company's financial affairs, which will place the creditors in a better position to assess the feasibility of any proposed scheme of arrangement.44 The company is also required to provide the High Court with an undertaking that it will make the application for the scheme of arrangement as soon as practicable.45 A creditor may apply to the High Court to vary or terminate the moratorium, especially if the applicant company has not filed the information required.46
A moratorium under Section 211C can be granted on the application of a subject company's 'related company' (i.e., subsidiary, holding company or ultimate holding company) where, among other things, the related company plays a necessary and integral role in the compromise or arrangement relied on by the subject company to make the moratorium application.47 The High Court may extend the moratorium to acts taking place in Singapore or elsewhere as long as the creditor is in Singapore or within the jurisdiction of the Court.48 In contrast, moratoriums granted under Section 210(10) cannot have extraterritorial effect.49 In any event, in granting an extraterritorial moratorium, the High Court should not make an omnibus order but should instead target a specific act, or acts, of a specific party.50
A scheme of arrangement that has been approved by the High Court may only be amended by way of an order of court. A scheme of arrangement approved by the Court will need to be lodged with the ACRA before it becomes binding.51
v Control of insolvency proceedings
The Singapore courts have assigned certain judges with the requisite expertise as docketed insolvency judges to hear applications relating to insolvency and restructuring, including when the matter is urgent. Generally, the various insolvency procedures will be administered by the respective insolvency professionals appointed. However, the High Court does retain a certain degree of oversight.
Upon the making of a winding-up order by the High Court, the liquidator may only carry on the business of the company so far as is necessary for the beneficial winding up of the company for a period of four weeks after the date of the winding-up order. Thereafter, the liquidator can only do so with the leave of the Court or the committee of inspection.52 The powers of the company's directors also effectively cease when the winding-up order is made by the Court.
In the case of voluntary winding up, upon the appointment of a liquidator, all the powers of the company's directors cease except to the extent approved by the liquidator, or by the members of the company with the consent of the liquidator in the case of a members' voluntary winding up, or the committee of inspection in the case of a creditors' voluntary winding up.53
The liquidator is regarded as an officer of the High Court and is, therefore, expected to discharge his or her duties accordingly. All private liquidators are subject to the supervision of the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver may take cognisance of the conduct of a liquidator to determine whether the liquidator has faithfully performed his or her duties and observed all the requirements imposed on him or her by law in relation to the performance of his or her duties. In the event that a complaint is made against a liquidator, the Official Receiver shall make enquiries about the complaint and take the appropriate action.54
The liquidator in a compulsory winding up is required to seek the High Court's leave to be released from his or her office as liquidator.55
Upon appointment, a judicial manager steps into the shoes of the company's directors and is deemed to be the company's agent, with the ability to exercise the powers of the company's officers.56 The judicial manager is also regarded as an officer of the High Court and is therefore expected to discharge his or her duties accordingly. A judicial manager may be removed at any time by the High Court and he or she is required to seek the Court's leave to be released from that office.57
A judicial manager is obliged to table a statement of his or her proposals to achieve one or more of the purposes stated in the judicial management order (a Statement of Proposals) for the company's creditors. The Statement of Proposals must be sent to the Registrar of the ACRA as well as all creditors of the company.58 Thereafter, the judicial manager is obliged to summon a meeting of all the company's creditors to consider and vote on the Statement of Proposals. The judicial manager is required to report to the Court the proceedings of the creditors' meeting and the results of the voting on the Statement of Proposals.59
A judicial manager may be held personally liable for any contracts entered into by him or her on behalf of the company, or for any contracts previously entered into by the company and which he or she had adopted.60
A receiver or manager (regardless of whether he or she is appointed privately or by the High Court), may apply to the Court to seek directions for any matter connected to the performance of his or her functions.61
Any creditor, contributory or liquidator of a company may also apply to the High Court to examine the conduct of a receiver or manager who appears to have misapplied, retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company; the same applies if the receiver or manager appears to have committed any misfeasance or breach of trust or duty in respect of the company.62
Scheme of arrangement
The High Court has the power to supervise scheme meetings and it is open to the scheme manager to apply to the Court for directions and other ancillary orders as may be appropriate.
vi Special regimes
Singapore has enacted additional industry-specific legislative provisions for insolvency. Examples include the resolution regime for a bank licensed under the Banking Act, as set out in the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, and the resolution regime for insurance companies, as set out in the Insurance Act.
vii Rescue financing
The May 2017 amendments to the Companies Act have introduced provisions on rescue financing, which refers to any financing that is either necessary for the survival of the company as a going concern, or to achieve a more advantageous realisation of the assets of the company than if the company were to be wound up.63
When there is a judicial management order in force, or when a company has made a scheme application or moratorium application, the High Court is empowered to grant one of four levels of priority over other secured and unsecured debts, that is for the rescue financing to (1) be treated as part of the costs and expenses of the winding up, (2) have 'super priority' over preferential debts, (3) be secured by a security interest on property not otherwise subject to any security interest or that is subordinate to existing security, or (4) be secured by a security interest, on property subject to an existing security interest, of the same or a higher priority than the existing security interest.64
For the rescue financier to be granted priority levels 2, 3 or 4, above, it must be shown that the company is unable to obtain financing from other persons unless the rescue financier is accorded that particular level of priority. Further, for an existing security interest to be overridden (i.e., level 4, above), the existing secured creditor must be adequately protected.
In its first decision on whether to grant super priority for debts arising from rescue financing, the High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.65 It held that an applicant must first demonstrate that it has expended reasonable efforts to seek out non-priority sources of financing, before seeking super priority rescue financing – which would otherwise disrupt the expected priority of existing creditors.66 The applicant cannot merely assert that such efforts would be futile because of its weak financial position.67
On 8 April 2019, in an unreported decision, the High Court granted level 2 priority to S$1.5 million of 'business quick-start financing' to Asiatravel.com Holdings Ltd and its subsidiary (collectively, ATH Group). It is notable that ATH Group, besides approaching its existing lenders who refused to provide any further financing, had engaged a third-party investment banking and financial advisory firm, DHC Capital Pte Ltd, which was also unsuccessful in approaching the market and identifying other potential lenders willing to offer financing.68
viii Cross-border issues
Pursuant to Section 354B(1) of the Companies Act, the Model Law has the force of law in Singapore and facilitates the resolution of cross-border insolvencies by, among other things:
- streamlining and clarifying the process for recognition in Singapore of foreign insolvency proceedings;
- facilitating access by foreign insolvency representatives to the Singapore courts, as well as the granting of relief in Singapore to assist foreign proceedings; and
- promoting cooperation and coordination between courts of different jurisdictions and insolvency administrators.
With the abolition of the ring-fencing rule in respect of foreign companies under Part XI of the Companies Act, the introduction of the Model Law is a marked departure from the traditionally territorial conception of cross-border insolvency and is emblematic of the shift towards the principle of modified universalism that was embraced by the High Court in Re Opti-Medix Ltd69 as the golden thread running through cross-border insolvency law, which requires courts, as far as is consistent with justice and public policy, to cooperate with the courts in the country of the principal liquidation to ensure that all the company's assets are distributed to its creditors under a single system of distribution.
The adoption of the Model Law also provides clarity in respect of the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and coheres neatly with pre-Model Law decisions in which the inherent jurisdiction of the court was invoked as a basis for recognition of foreign winding up proceedings.70
II INSOLVENCY METRICS
There were 312 compulsory winding up petitions and 207 companies in compulsory liquidation in 2018. This was a slight increase compared with the 256 compulsory winding up petitions filed and 168 companies that were compulsorily liquidated in 2017.71
Between January and April 2019, a total of 87 compulsory winding up petitions were filed and 66 companies were wound up.72
III PLENARY INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS
On 29 May 2019, the creditors of Swiber Holdings Limited voted on and approved the restructuring proposal set out in the judicial manager's statement of proposals.73 Among other directions issued by the High Court in the lead-up, the court in Re Swiber Holdings74 held that the general rule that a creditor shall not vote in respect of the part of its claim secured over the debtor's property75 did not extend to security over property provided by a third party (e.g., the debtor's subsidiary or associate).76
In a separate proceeding, the Court of Appeal set aside an order granting leave to Empire Capital Resources Pte Ltd to convene a creditors' meeting to vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement.77 As the applicant had failed to provide sufficient disclosure for the Court to be satisfied that fair conduct of the creditors' meeting is possible,78 the Court would not even allow the proposed scheme to be put before the creditors for their consideration.
IV ANCILLARY INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS
The US Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee of Zetta Jet Pte Ltd and Zetta Jet USA Inc successfully obtained recognition of the US Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings under the Model Law as enacted in Singapore, on his second attempt.
In January 2018, the High Court (per Justice Aedit Abdullah) refused general recognition of the trustee and the US proceedings because of an extant Singapore injunction enjoining Zetta Jet Pte Ltd and its shareholders from carrying out any further steps in the US proceedings.79 The Court held that recognition would undermine the administration of justice in Singapore and be contrary to public policy.80 However, the Court granted limited recognition to the trustee only for the purpose of applying to set aside or appeal against the injunction.81
In March 2019, following a consensual discharge of the injunction, the High Court granted recognition of the US proceedings as a foreign main proceeding (i.e., a foreign proceeding taking place where the debtor has its COMI).82 The Court clarified that a debtor's COMI is to be determined as at the date the recognition application was filed.83 The Court added that the assessment of a debtor's COMI focuses on where the primary commercial decisions are made for the debtor84 and involves the consideration of various factors, such as the location of creditors, location of operations, and representations made to third parties.85
As discussed in Section I, so as to position Singapore to meet the anticipated increase in demand for insolvency and restructuring services in the Asia-Pacific region, the DRC was appointed by the Ministry of Law to build on the work of the ILRC and recommend initiatives and legal reforms to cement Singapore's status as a leading centre from which to coordinate a multi-jurisdictional restructuring.
Key recommendations by the DRC report have been implemented through the amendments to the Companies Act that came into effect on 23 May 2017, and the passing of the IRDA.
Notably, several of the key changes to the insolvency framework were adapted, with appropriate modification, from jurisdictions that possess more mature and highly developed insolvency processes, such as the US Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession regime. It is anticipated that more companies (including foreign companies) will avail themselves of the features under the enhanced insolvency regime.
1 Nish Shetty is a partner and Elan Krishna, Keith Han and Loh Tian Kai are associates at Clifford Chance Asia.
2 Companies Act, Section 247.
3 ibid., at Section 351(2A).
4 ibid., at Section 297(1).
5 ibid., at Section 294(1).
6 ibid., at Section 267.
8 ibid., at Section 269.
9 ibid., at Section 227A.
10 ibid., at Section 227B.
11 ibid., at Section 227G.
12 ibid., at Section 227D.
13 Civil Law Act, Section 4(10).
14 Companies Act, Section 210.
15 ibid., at Section 210(3AB).
16 ibid., at Section 211H, Paragraphs (2) and (3).
17 ibid., at Section 211H(4)(a).
18 Pathfinder Strategic Credit LP and another v. Empire Capital Resources Pte Ltd and another appeal  SGCA 29 at  to .
19 Companies Act, Section 254(1)(e).
20 ibid., at Section 254(2)(a).
21 ibid., at Section 254(2)(b).
22 ibid., at Section 253(1).
23 ibid., at Section 255(2).
24 ibid., Section 258.
25 The statutory declaration is made by the company's directors.
26 Companies Act, Section 291(1)(a).
27 ibid., at Section 290(1)(b).
28 ibid., at Section 291(1)(b).
29 ibid., at Sections 296 to 298.
30 ibid., at Section 291(6).
31 ibid., at Section 293, Paragraphs (1) and (3).
32 ibid., at Section 293(2).
33 ibid., at Section 294(1).
34 ibid., at Section 295.
35 ibid., at Section 227B.
36 ibid., at Section 227C.
37 ibid., at Section 227B(5).
38 Singapore Rules of Court, Order 30, Rule 1.
39 Companies Act, Section 210, Paragraphs (1) and (2).
40 ibid., at Sections 210(10) and Section 211B.
41 ibid., at Section 211B, Paragraphs (8) and (13).
42 ibid., at Section 211B(4), as interpreted by Re IM Skaugen SE and other matters  3 SLR 979 [IM Skaugen] at  to .
43 ibid., at Section 211B(4)(a), as interpreted by IM Skaugen at .
44 ibid., at Section 211B(4)(b), as interpreted by IM Skaugen at .
45 ibid., at Section 211B(2)(b).
46 ibid., at Section 211B, Paragraphs (4), (10) and (11).
47 ibid., at Section 211C(1).
48 ibid., at Sections 211B(5) and 211C(4).
49 Pacific Andes Resources Development Ltd and other matters  5 SLR 125 at  and .
50 IM Skaugen at .
51 ibid., at Section 210(5).
52 ibid., at Section 272(1)(a).
53 ibid., at Sections 294(2) and 297(4).
54 ibid., at Section 265(1).
55 ibid., at Section 275.
56 ibid., at Section 227G(2).
57 ibid., at Section 227J.
58 ibid., at Section 227M.
59 ibid., at Section 227N.
60 ibid., at Section 227I.
61 ibid., at Section 218(3).
62 ibid., at Section 227(2).
63 ibid., at Sections 211E(9) and 227HA(10).
64 ibid., at Sections 211E(1) and 227HA(1).
65 Re Attilan Group Ltd  3 SLR 898.
66 ibid., at ,  and  to .
67 ibid., at .
68 International Law Office, 'Landmark decision – Singapore's first successful application for super priority rescue financing', published on 3 May 2019.
69 Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter  4 SLR 312.
70 For example, Re Taisoo Suk (as foreign representative of Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd)  5 SLR 787.
71 Ministry of Law, Insolvency Office, 'Graphical Statistics for Corporate Insolvency – Companies in Compulsory Liquidation', as at April 2019.
73 Singapore Exchange announcement, 'Outcome of the Creditors' Meeting', dated 29 May 2019.
74 Re Swiber Holdings Ltd and another matter  5 SLR 1130 (per Justice Kannan Ramesh) [Re Swiber Holdings].
75 Companies Regulations, Regulation 74.
76 Re Swiber Holdings at .
77 Pathfinder Strategic Credit LP and another v. Empire Capital Resources Pte Ltd and another appeal  SGCA 29 at .
78 ibid., at .
79 Re Zetta Jet Pte Ltd and others  4 SLR 801 at .
80 ibid., at  to .
81 ibid., at .
82 Re Zetta Jet Pte Ltd and others (Asia Aviation Holdings Pte Ltd, Intervener)  SGHC 53 at  and .
83 ibid., at .
84 ibid., at .
85 ibid., at  to .