Acrostics Asia is delighted to share Virtus Law LLP’s piece on a landmark Singapore High Court decision granting recognition and ancillary relief for consolidated reorganisation proceedings related to three companies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

While not the first time the Singapore Court recognised a PRC liquidation proceeding, this decision is the first reported judgment in Singapore to recognise and provide relief in support of PRC reorganisation proceedings, according to the article written by Virtus Law’s Managing Partner Lauren Tang, Senior Associate Yilei Tan and Associate Chit Yee Ooi.

This highlights the readiness of the Singapore Court to lend cross-border support to PRC insolvency or reorganisation proceedings to promote cross-border cooperation between PRC and Singapore.

Virtus Law is a member of the Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance.

Case Background

The Companies were undergoing Reorganisation Proceedings in PRC, and Mr. Zhang Jingping was appointed as the administrator of the Reorganisation Proceedings (the “Administrator”).

The Administrator made the recognition application before the Singapore Court as the Administrator discovered potential issues in respect of the Companies’ affairs in Singapore, including the transfer of one of the Companies’ 100% shareholding in a Singapore incorporated company (“SG Subsidiary”) for a nominal consideration of $1 before the commencement of the Reorganisation Proceedings.

The Administrator therefore sought the Singapore Court’s recognition of the Reorganisation Proceedings and ancillary relief, including:

1. an order allowing the Administrator to examine witnesses, take evidence and the delivery of information concerning the Companies’ property, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities in Singapore (the “Article 21(1)(d) Relief”); and

2. orders entrusting the Administrator with the administration or realisation of the Companies’ property in Singapore, subject to the Singapore Court’s approval for expatriation of such property out of Singapore (“Article 21(1)(e) Relief”).

Recognition of the Reorganisation Proceedings

Under Article 15 of the Model Law, foreign representatives may apply for the recognition of the foreign proceeding in which the foreign representative has been appointed, subject to the procedural requirement that the application is accompanied by the requisite documentation (see Articles 15(2) to 15(4) of the Model Law).

The Singapore Court largely had no issues with the procedural requirements of the application, save that it did not accept the submission that the Reorganisation Proceedings were collective in nature merely because they were commenced under the PRC bankruptcy law.

The Singapore Court required the Administrator to address the nature of the Reorganisation Proceedings itself, but nonetheless reached the conclusion that the Reorganisation Proceedings was collective because a meeting of creditors of the Companies would have to be called so creditors could vote on the draft plan on reorganisation, a statutory threshold would have to be met for each category of creditors before the reorganisation plan could be approved by the PRC Court, and all assets and liabilities of the Companies would be in a consolidated reorganisation where the rights and debts of each entity would be extinguished and the properties owned by each entity would be treated as a unified estate.

Reliefs Granted

Article 21(1)(d) Relief

Three requirements must be met for Article 21(1)(d) Relief to be granted:

1. the documents or information must concern the debtor’s property, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities;

2. the applicant must show that there is some reasonable basis for his belief that the person concerned can assist him in obtaining relevant information and/or documents, and that the information and/or documents are reasonably required; and

3. the court must take into account all relevant circumstances when exercising its discretion to make the order, including whether the interests of the affected person are adequately protected, so as to not make an order that is wholly unreasonable, unnecessary or oppressive to him.

There were no issues as regards limbs 1 and 2. As regards limb 3, the Singapore Court was of the view that the specific transactions identified by the Administrator warranted investigations (e.g. the transfer of the Singapore Subsidiary for a nominal consideration).

Further, the timing of the transactions and the substantial values involved (i.e. a $1 billion syndicated loan and a significant amount in receivables) warranted the examination orders. The Singapore Court therefore found that the information sought was reasonably required to obtain as full a picture as possible of the Companies’ affairs to identify potential claims to maximise recovery for creditors.

Article 21(1)(e) Relief

The Singapore Court granted Article 21(1)(e) Relief as it was satisfied that local creditors would be treated fairly and given ample opportunity to participate in foreign insolvency proceedings as the Administrator clarified that no property would be expatriated without leave of court.

Conclusion

While not the first time the Singapore Court recognised a PRC liquidation proceeding (see here where we assisted the administrators of Sainty Marine Corporation to obtain a Singapore Court recognition order), this decision is the first reported judgment in Singapore to recognise and provide relief in support of PRC reorganisation proceedings.

This highlights the readiness of the Singapore Court to lend cross-border support to PRC insolvency or reorganisation proceedings to promote cross-border cooperation between PRC and Singapore.

This is especially so given the reciprocity requirement for a PRC Court to recognise a Singapore insolvency or reorganisation judgment (see here), where the Xiamen Maritime Court of the PRC recognised the appointment of the judicial managers of two Singapore companies.

Acrostics Asia is delighted to share a Q&A with Richard Borsuk, co-author of Liem Sioe Liong’s Salim Group: The Business Pillar of Suharto’s Indonesia. This Q&A was first published on 5 July 2024.

The highly-acclaimed biography of Liem, the conglomerate’s late founder, is regarded as one of the best books on Indonesia’s modern history.

It took you eight years to finish the book. Can you describe the process and how you kept going? At which point did you decide that it was time to stop researching and finish the writing?

I’m responsible for the length of time. I naively thought it wouldn’t take too long to do my parts of the text, as I had reported on Indonesia for the Wall Street Journal for years, but I was way wrong.

During the research, co-author Nancy Chng and I learned many intriguing things, often through stimulating interviews. I enjoyed the research so much it was hard to stop that and get on with the drafting. Nancy finished her chapters long before I did.

We made 2011 a cut-off date for submitting the draft. But in June 2012, when the text was being edited, Liem died, so we took it back from the publisher to work in that and material on his legacy.

What kept me going? I had talked Nancy into doing a book together, and I rightly would have been in real hot soup if I didn’t deliver as promised. Our book was completely a joint venture – we brought knowledge about different topics. It can be stressful to write a book with your spouse because each has to edit the other. Fortunately, we got to the finish line – and we’re still married. Nancy has made very clear there will be not be a second joint project.

Did it surprise you that Anthoni Salim (Liem’s youngest son and current group boss) agreed to a series of on-the-record interviews and to your requirement that editorial control stay 100% with you and Nancy? In other words, he couldn’t read any of the text until it was published.

That’s correct. And that was essential for our book to be credible. Anthoni had long read my articles and knew I had no agenda, just wanted a factual story. This isn’t a coffee-table puff-piece of a book that says so-and-so is the greatest thing since nasi goreng. From what I see, no other conglomerate boss would agree with our condition that he couldn’t vet the draft.

In the book, Pak Anthoni likened doing business in Indonesia to the patterns of Batik, which has designs that are intricate and complex – not clear-cut like Burberry patterns. Do you have any advice on how to navigate Indonesia’s blurred lines?

There are often blurs, as Indonesia is complicated. For a reporter, don’t expect to get to the real bottom of why something happened, or who doesn’t like so-and-so because of friction 30 years ago.

Journalist or executive, you sometimes have to settle for quite a bit less than the full story.

It can be hard for potential investors to carry out deep due diligence on stakeholders or proxies in a project. Anthoni has the resources and patience to do it. He reads a lot and spends time talking to experts to get knowledge on a subject that initially might have been a blur.

In your opinion, has business changed significantly or basically stayed the same in Indonesia over the years?

Wah, that’s a big subject, and I haven’t spent enough time in Indonesia in recent years to have formed a clear opinion. My impression is that both statements could be valid. There seems to still be quite a bit of New Order Indonesia (pre-Suharto fall) in post-1998 Indonesia.

There’s still corruption, of course, and still governance and conflict-of-interest issues, plus too little transparency. These impede the building of cleaner, stronger institutions that would help Indonesia grow in a healthier way.

Lastly, do you have any tips for young professionals who are trying to make their mark?

I would never try to be a coach, except perhaps for writing. I would recommend that young people read non-fiction and quality media to deepen their knowledge and understanding of the increasingly complex and fast-changing world.

Acrostics Asia is delighted to share Dentons Rodyk’s piece on the revamp of Singapore’s COVID-era Simplified Insolvency Programme.

The revamped framework (SIP 2.0) “represents a maturing of Singapore’s approach to small corporate distress,” Debby Lim, Senior Partner at Dentons Rodyk, wrote.

“By embedding a simplified regime on a permanent footing, the framework recognises that proportionality is not merely a temporary expedient, but a structural necessity in modern insolvency systems.”

Key Takeaways

With effect from 29 January 2026, Singapore has replaced the temporary COVID‑era Simplified Insolvency Programme (SIP 1.0) with a permanent framework embedded within the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA).

The revamped iteration (SIP 2.0) marks a clear transition: what began as emergency relief has now been absorbed into the core design of Singapore’s insolvency system for small and relatively straightforward cases.

This update outlines the structural shifts introduced by SIP 2.0, and considers their broader implications for how small corporate distress is expected to be addressed going forward.

Click here for the full report.

Acrostics Asia is delighted to share this alert written by Vietnamese law firm Indochine Counsel.

The International Financial Centre (IFC) Specialised Courts Law “demonstrates Vietnam’s efforts to develop a coherent judicial infrastructure to serve investors operating within the IFC, rather than implementing isolated procedural reforms,” Indochine said in its note.

Key Takeaways

• The Specialised Court at the International Financial Centre is the competent authority for resolving financial and investment disputes arising within the International Financial Centres in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang City.

• The Specialised Court is organised under a two-tier adjudication structure (first instance and appeal) and operates under flexible, specialised procedural rules aligned with international standards and practice, with a strong emphasis on party autonomy.

• Foreign judges, lawyers, and other reputable experts may be appointed as judges of the Specialised Court.

• The Specialised Court permits the application of foreign law and international commercial customs in dispute resolution. English is the language of proceedings, and electronic proceedings may be implemented on a comprehensive basis.

• Judges of the Specialised Court are empowered to issue decisions directly and oversee enforcement, thereby ensuring that judgments and decisions are enforced promptly and effectively.

Click here for the full alert.

Key Highlights from Law on the Specialised Court at the International Financial Centre by Indochine Counsel

584KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download