Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Opening Remarks by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam at the Singapore Insolvency Conference 2025
SINGAPORE INSOLVENCY CONFERENCE 2025
OPENING REMARKS
7 October 2025
The Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam
Judge, Supreme Court of Singapore
President, Singapore International Commercial Court
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. It is a pleasure to address this annual conference of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Singapore. It is a very rich programme over the next two days for all of you. The range of topics reflects how active Singapore has become as a debt restructuring hub. It is worth taking a moment to think about the many pillars to Singapore’s success as a restructuring hub and how these pillars reinforce each other. I start with the overall legal framework. One hallmark of our system is a forward-looking approach, that draws on continually considering best practices elsewhere but also consulting with industry and the relevant professions. We were an early adopter of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”). The value of the Model Law only increases with broader adoption, and our neighbours in Malaysia are currently in the process of adopting it too. When they do, it will strengthen cross-border restructuring in the region. The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 was introduced to modernise our insolvency regime and there has recently been consultation on whether and how to tweak and adjust the regime further. The next pillar is that of the courts and judiciary. The courts have developed a significant body of case law in this field, and just as importantly have taken institutional steps to strengthen judicial expertise and judicial cross-border cooperation, including through our leadership role in the Judicial Insolvency Network. Perhaps the biggest institutional step we have taken is the SICC’s assumption of jurisdiction to hear corporate insolvency, restructuring and dissolution proceedings that are international and commercial in nature. This strengthens Singapore’s position as a key nodal jurisdiction for cross-border insolvency and restructuring.
2. To come within the SICC’s jurisdiction, the debtor should be a Singapore-incorporated company or a foreign company with substantial connection with Singapore. Proceeding types include schemes of arrangement and judicial management, as well as applications under the Model Law.
3. A case is international in nature if any of the following disjunctive conditions apply:
a. The proceedings are under the Model Law; or
b. The debtor has any of the following in a foreign country –
i. Place of business
ii. Assets
iii. Liabilities
iv. Creditors
v. Contractual obligations; or
c. where the debtor is under any obligation governed by foreign law; or
d. where control and direction of debtor is administered from a foreign country.
4. SICC’s insolvency jurisdiction is still relatively new but there have already been a number of significant cases. As is typical of the SICC, these cases were heard by specialist insolvency judges. This included international judges Chris Sontchi and Jim Peck. Both international judges have had illustrious careers as insolvency practitioners and as insolvency judges. Sontchi IJ was Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. Peck IJ was a Judge of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.
5. The first example is PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk.1 In this matter, two foreign representatives of the Indonesian airline Garuda sought: (a) recognition of its suspension of payment proceeding in Indonesia as a foreign main proceeding in Singapore under the Singapore Model Law; (b) an order recognising and enforcing the restructuring plan approved by the Jakarta Commercial Court; and (c) moratorium relief. Dismissing objections from two aircraft lessors, the SICC (comprising Justice Kannan Ramesh, SICC International Judges Christopher Scott Sontchi and Anselmo Reyes) recognised the Indonesian suspension of payment proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and the restructuring plan.
6. A second example is Terraform Labs Pte Ltd, where SICC International Judge Jim Peck granted recognition of the US Chapter 11 proceeding as a foreign non-main proceeding.
7. In Re No Va Land Investment Group Corp2, SICC International Judge Jim Peck sanctioned a pre-pack scheme of arrangement for the Vietnam incorporated and based property developer No Va Land within 15 days from case commencement. This matters how Singapore as a restructuring hub serves the wider region’s economic and business interests by facilitating refinancing and recycling of capital by a trusted legal and financial system.
8. I would mention three procedural features of the SICC that are helpful when it comes to cross-border insolvency and restricting. The first is Joint Case Management Conferences with Foreign Court. This was done in the Garuda case. Garuda had also filed a similar application in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY Court) to seek recognition of the suspension of payment proceeding and restructuring plan. The SDNY Court and the SICC approved a protocol for court-to-court communication between those courts that was based on the “Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters” published by the Judicial Insolvency Network to facilitate the making of arrangements for the joint management of the applications before the two courts. Joint case management conferences of the SDNY Court and the SICC were held.
9. The second is the potential participation of foreign ie non-Singapore lawyers. Subject to prior permission of the SICC and provided that he or she does not make submission on any matter of Singapore law, a foreign lawyer can seek full or limited registration with a view to appearing and pleading in corporate insolvency, restructuring and dissolution proceedings in the SICC (and related appeals and preliminary applications). This affords full choice of counsel to foreign parties. At the same time, international businesses have recourse to Singapore via the SICC where previously they were either unable to find an effective solution at all or would seek it elsewhere. This means there are new opportunities for Singapore lawyers along with foreign lawyers
10. The third is the approach to costs. The court hearing the matter has full power to determine the costs, and costs awarded will generally reflect the actual costs incurred, subject to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
11. A large volume of insolvency cases continues to be filed in the General Division of the High Court and many of these have a cross-border element. For example, in April of this year, the court granted recognition and relief under the Model Law to King & Woods Mallesons as the reorganisation administrator of three related Chinese incorporated companies undergoing a consolidated reorganisation in China.3
12. Having given you a brief outline of the court’s insolvency jurisdiction, I now turn to a question that has arisen in different countries concerning whether and under what circumstances a creditor has to arbitrate a dispute before filing liquidation proceedings based on the debt owed.
13. There are two different approaches take to when a winding-up application would be stayed if the debt on which the creditor petitions is subject to an arbitration clause:
a. In the Singapore courts, where a winding-up application has been filed notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement between parties, the court will stay such proceedings in favour of arbitration so long as it is prima facie satisfied that:4
i. there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;
ii. the dispute raised falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and
iii. the dispute raised is not an abuse of process.
b. In the English courts, however, the court will refuse to stay or dismiss such winding-up applications in favour of arbitration unless the debt is “genuinely disputed on substantial grounds” between parties. 5
14. In essence, the key difference between these approaches is the standard of review that courts will apply in determining whether to rule in favour of arbitration.
a. The Singapore approach provides for a prima facie standard of review – a lower threshold for determining whether a debt dispute ought to go to arbitration.6 It is only where the debtor’s raising of a dispute amounts to an abuse of process that the insolvency court would proceed with the winding up application.
b. The English approach provides something closer to a “triable issue standard” – a higher threshold for determining whether a debt dispute ought to go to arbitration.7
15. There are important doctrinal and policy differences that underlie this divergence of approach. What I would like to speak to however is the recent emergence of a possible solution for the biggest practical concern that creditors have arising from the Singapore approach. That concern is the length of time taken for a dispute to be resolved in arbitration, especially where the debtor is not interested in an early resolution and employs delay tactics. Delaying the conclusion of the arbitration holds back the commencement of winding up proceedings. Even without such tactics, high value and complex financing contracts before a three-member arbitral tribunal can take two to three years between filing an arbitration and obtaining an award. A debtor seeking to spin things out can delay things considerably if the underlying issues are simple ones, because arbitrators may feel reluctant to press parties on timelines. By contrast, if there is no arbitration clause, then the Singapore courts would be able to deal with it more robustly and more quickly. First, at the threshold stage, an insolvency court would apply the triable issue standard to the question of whether there is a disputed debt. Secondly, even if there are triable issues, the trial would be in court. Court proceedings in Singapore typically take a shorter period of time than arbitrations, especially in the situation where the defendant’s interest lies in delay. The chief advantage that the court has is its greater case management powers. Courts are less dependent than arbitral tribunals on parties’ cooperation.
16. So one answer is for lenders to insert choice of court clauses into their transactions documents, such as choice of the SICC. But there is also a promising innovation at SIAC that may help to address this concern, if it is taken up by parties to arbitration agreements. This is the new Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol issued earlier this year. The Protocol truncates the timelines under the SIAC Rules. Most importantly in terms of speed, it makes a single-member tribunal the default. So it might be possible for the potential creditor, such as a bank lender, to require that any arbitration clause to which it would agree must incorporate the Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol. This would mean that where the debt is of a size relative to the debtor that suggests there should be immediate consideration of liquidation the creditor can use the protocol to have the dispute resolved relatively quickly in arbitration.
17. Another possible use for this protocol would be disputes over admission or rejection of a proof of debt. Sometimes the liquidators or private trustees in bankruptcy consider question of admission or rejection too complex for summary determination on their own. The new protocol could offer a speedy route to resolving such questions. However, there may not be much advantage to using the protocol for this other purpose. This is because the existing route of a dissatisfied creditor bringing an application to court under IRDA also leads to a speedy outcome. Such applications are typically dealt with quickly, within a few months at most.
18. There are many legal issues of current interest in the insolvency field, and many of them find their way to our courts. In relation to proofs of debt, recent corporate insolvencies have raised the question of how to deal with potential concurrent claims against both the corporate entity in liquidation and the individual directors in bankruptcy. For example, a victim of a Ponzi scheme may have a claim both against the company and against the director if that director dealt personally with the victim. Another example is where directors may be liable to creditors of the company on the basis of fraudulent or insolvent trading. I had to consider this issue in relation to a matter where the trustees in bankruptcy of an alleged Ponzi mastermind had rejected the proof of debt of someone who had a claim in fraud and deceit against that mastermind as well as a claim against the company.8 They rejected it on two grounds: complexity and the existence of a parallel or overlapping claim against a different insolvency estate. On the first ground, I clarified that complexity alone was not a sufficient basis to reject a proof of debt unless there was a substantial dispute on the merits of the claim. On the second ground, I aligned this situation of parallel or overlapping claims against different insolvent estates to double dipping rather than the filing of a double proof in a single insolvency estate. The former is permissible, while the latter is not. It would be interesting to see whether at any stage the utility of pooling related insolvent estates for the purpose of distribution gains traction, but in my view that would be something that would require legislative change.
19. Before I sit down, I would like to say a few words about Patrick, for whom there is an in-memoriam segment planned in a moment. I first got to know Patrick in the early nineties. As we all know, Singapore’s role in cross-border disputes and cross-border restructuring has changed and grown beyond all recognition over the past thirty-five years. Patrick’s quiet expertise and steady diligence contributed greatly to that transformation. He was unassuming and humble but make no mistake he would do all he could for a client, in the best traditions of our profession.
20. This conference in and of itself is a tribute to Patrick. You will honour his memory over the next two days by the force and seriousness of your discussions and deliberations, keeping front and centre not just the interests of insolvency practitioners but also the public interest. Patrick always recognised the importance of the public interest in the work that we do. An example of this was his role in relation to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, for which he was awarded the Public Service Star.
21. Marina and Geraldine, your loss is ineffably greater than ours, but I must tell you that all of us miss Patrick very much.
22. With that I yield the podium to the tribute that will follow.
1 [2024] SGHC(I) 1
2 [2024] SGHC(I) 17
3 King & Wood Mallesons [2025] SGHC 67.
4 Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd v Singapore JHC Co Pte Ltd [2023] 2 SLR 554 at [15], [21]; AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) at [56].
5 Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 at [122].
6 AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) at [56].
7 Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 at [122].
8 [2025] SGHC 88.
2025/12/31
Share this page:
