legal assignment singapore

Straits Times Index

S&p 500, bitcoin usd, cmc crypto 200, ftse bursa malaysia, jakarta composite index, assignment and novation: how to transfer a contract in singapore.

There are 2 methods of transferring a contract in Singapore. If you want to transfer just the rights under the contract, you can perform an assignment of the contract. On the other hand, if you want to transfer both the rights and obligations under the contract, you can perform a novation of…

The post Assignment and Novation: How to Transfer a Contract in Singapore appeared first on SingaporeLegalAdvice.com .

There are 2 methods of transferring a contract in Singapore.

If you want to transfer just the rights under the contract, you can perform an assignment of the contract.

On the other hand, if you want to transfer both the rights and obligations under the contract, you can perform a novation of the contract.

Assignment: Transferring Only Your Rights Under the Contract to a Third-Party

If you wish to transfer just the rights (i.e. benefits) of your contract to another person, an assignment is the appropriate choice for you.

For example, you may want to assign the right to receive cash payouts from your life insurance or endowment plans to a loved one, for his/her benefit.

Since an assignment only transfers the rights under the contract, you will still retain your obligations under the contract .

Finally, your assignee (i.e. the person you’ve assigned the contract to) will not be a party to the contract. The contract will still be between you and the other original party to the contract.

Can your contract be assigned?

Contracts of a personal nature , such as employment contracts , cannot be assigned. This is because these contracts have been signed with parties specifically for certain exclusive qualities that these parties have. (For example, the parties’ skills or styles of performance.) The parties to these contracts therefore cannot be “replaced” so easily.

Commercial contracts may also contain a clause expressly excluding or limiting their assignment unless certain conditions have been fulfilled.

Here is a sample restriction of assignment clause:

“Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder shall be assigned by any of the parties hereto (whether by operation of law or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the other parties. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement will be binding upon, to the benefit of and enforceable by the parties and their respective successors and assigns.”

When deciding whether to assign your contract, you should therefore check whether it contains any clauses providing for conditions on assignment.

Requirements for assignment

Once you have determined that your contract can be assigned, you can start to prepare for its assignment.

The requirements for assignment are:

The assignment has to be absolute. This means that it has to be unconditional;

The assignment cannot be by way of charge. The assignment cannot be made in return for security;

The rights to be assigned must be clearly identified ;

The assignment has to be in writing and signed by the assignor ;

The other party to the assigned contract is given clear and unambiguous notice of the assignment in writing. The notice can be given by either the assignor or the assignee. However, the notice must also be unconditional.

Contracts can be assigned without the consent of the other party to the contract.

If all the above requirements are met, the assignee will have the right to sue the other party to the contract for the benefits provided under it (if required).

If not all of the requirements have been met, the assignment will still be valid. However, the assignee will not be able to sue the other party to the contract directly.

Instead, he will have to join you (the assignor) as a party first. In other words, you will have to be a party to the action as well.

Novation: Transferring Both Your Rights and Obligations Under the Contract to a Third-Party

If you would like to transfer both the rights and obligations under a contract to another party, then a novation is the appropriate choice.

For example, when selling your business , you may wish to novate your existing contracts with your suppliers to the new business owner, so that any outstanding debts under these contracts will be transferred to him.

Since novation has the effect of transferring both your rights and obligations to a third-party, the previous contract will effectively be extinguished . A new contract is then formed between the other party to the previous contract, and the third-party.

Can your contract be novated?

Your contract may expressly exclude or limit the right to novate. You should therefore check whether it contains any clauses providing for conditions on novation before proceeding.

Here is a sample restriction of novation clause (which also happens to restrict assignment):

“A party must not assign or novate this agreement or otherwise deal with the benefit of it or a right under it, or purport to do so, without the prior written consent of each other party which consent may be withheld at the absolute discretion of the party from whom consent is sought.”

Requirements for novation

A novation can be executed formally by way of a written agreement or by deed.

A novation can also arise through the parties’ conduct. For example, sending a notice of novation to the other parties of the original contract can suffice.

In either situation however, consent of all parties to the original contract is required . The new contract must also meet all the legal requirements for contract formation .

If you require legal advice on assigning or novating a contract, and/or on drafting the necessary documents to execute an assignment or novation, you may get in touch with one of our corporate and commercial lawyers .

Latest stories

Some countries have banned lace underwear so we spoke to experts to find out how dangerous wearing them really is.

To get to the bottom of whether lace undergarments are so bad for us, we consulted doctors who specialize in vaginal health.

David Beckham sues actor Mark Wahlberg over ‘£8.5m loss’ as friendship ends

The two stars became friends when Beckham moved to Los Angeles

Israel hit Iran with a half-ton supersonic 'Rampage' missile, report says

Israeli media reported that Israel used a "Rampage" air-to-surface missile.

Israel’s attack on Iran ‘took out’ Russian-made air defence system

Israel’s attack on Iran appears to have been a precise strike that took out the key part of a Russian-made air defence system at a key air base at Isfahan, according to reports.

China to rethink Taiwan seizure after Iran’s failed attack on Israel

China will be re-calibrating its plan to seize Taiwan to take into account lessons learned from Iran’s failed attack on Israel, defence experts say.

Michael Douglas says it’s ‘joyous’ to have kids late in life but teachers thought he was grandfather

Michael Douglas has said parenting later in life has made him a better father, even if he occasionally gets mistaken for his children’s granddad.

Red Lobster Is Heading For Bankruptcy After Losing $11M On Endless Shrimp Deal

Red Lobster is seeking advice from a law firm on whether to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy following a difficult few years for the chain.

China's latest supersonic spy drone looks a lot like the Lockheed D-21 that crashed there in 1971

China's new WZ-8 supersonic drone resembles the Lockheed D-21, a supersonic reconnaissance drone that crashed in Yunnan province in 1971.

Manchester United 'suffer triple injury blow' for Coventry FA Cup semi-final as new face added to squad

Another youngster called up as Erik ten Hag faces defensive injury crisis for Wembley trip

Disgraced former Stormy Daniels lawyer says he would now testify for Trump

‘I’m not saying any of this because I’m seeking a pardon,’ says Michael Avenatti

How a store manager from India ended up killed on the battlefields of Ukraine fighting for Russia

They opened the box on a Sunday in late March, getting their first look at Asfan Mohammed since he departed India for Russia four months earlier.

Spice Girls Reunite to Perform 'Stop' Dance at Victoria Beckham's 50th Birthday Party — See the Video!

The former group gave an impromptu performance in front of guests at the fashion designer's birthday bash on April 20

Chinese students in US tell of ‘chilling’ interrogations and deportations

As tensions with China rise, scientists at America’s leading universities complain of stalled research after crackdown at airports

Good Good Bird: Cheeky hipster stall with crispy fried chicken rice & porridge from just $3

The post Good Good Bird: Cheeky hipster stall with crispy fried chicken rice & porridge from just $3 appeared first on SETHLUI.com.

How PwC got burned by China’s big property bust

In an eerie, unfinished village of pink and blue fairytale houses in Eastern China, billboards can be found advertising Evergrande’s once ambitious plans to build a tourism empire bigger than Disney.

Jon Bon Jovi thanks Taylor Swift for enticing Prince William onstage to sing ‘Livin’ on a Prayer’

Exclusive: Bon Jovi tells ‘The Independent’ that Swift ‘literally grabbed him by the arm and ran up on stage’

Mother’s Day 2024: 11 best restaurants to make your mum feel like a queen in Singapore

The post Mother’s Day 2024: 11 best restaurants to make your mum feel like a queen in Singapore appeared first on SETHLUI.com.

‘I wanted sexual adventures, I didn’t want to fall in love’: Molly Roden Winter on her astonishing memoir of an open marriage

An open marriage, dating sites, sex with strangers – now the writer’s fearsomely frank and funny memoir about the joys of polyamory has become an instant bestseller

A restaurateur learned the hard way not to mess with Lauren Sánchez

NYC restaurateur Keith McNally insulted Lauren Sánchez in an unhinged, image-attacking Instagram post. It didn't go over well.

Haley welcomes husband back after deployment

Nikki Haley welcomed her husband back to the United States after he completed his deployment with the South Carolina National Guard. “That moment when you finally take a breath…It’s been a long year but even longer without each other. Thankful for Michael’s safe return and the end of a year long prayer,” Haley wrote on…

• Osome Blog Singapore

Contract Law in Singapore: Understanding Legal Agreements

Singapore's contract law is crucial, governing legal agreements to ensure they're valid and protective. This guide delves deep, from core components to handling breaches. Navigate your agreements with confidence and knowledge.

In Singapore, contract law plays a crucial role in ensuring that legal agreements are valid, enforceable, and protect the rights of all parties involved. Understanding the key elements of contract law is essential for individuals, businesses, and organisations operating within the city-state. For a more detailed understanding of the employment laws, check out the employment act .

In this article, we will delve into the various aspects of contract law in Singapore, examining its formation, enforceability, breach, and resolution.

Key Elements of a Contract Law in Singapore

A contract comprises several vital elements, with each playing a significant role in upholding its validity under Singaporean law. Before diving deep, let's explore the contract law basics in Singapore to provide a foundation for the upcoming detailed discussion.

Essential components for a valid and enforceable contract

When it comes to creating a contract that is both valid and enforceable, there are certain essential components that need to be considered. In addition to the key elements mentioned above, there are other factors that contribute to the validity and enforceability of a contract. Let's take a closer look at these components:

• Offer and acceptance — one of the fundamental requirements of a contract is the presence of a clear offer and an unambiguous acceptance of that offer. This means that both parties involved must clearly communicate their intentions and reach an agreement on the terms of the contract.
• Intention to create legal relations — for a contract to be considered valid, both parties should have a genuine intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. However, businesses must also consider other aspects like corporate secretarial services which play a role in contract formulation.
• Consideration — another crucial aspect of a valid contract is the presence of consideration. Consideration refers to the exchange of something of value between the parties involved. It can be in the form of money, goods, services, or even a promise to do or refrain from doing something. Without consideration, a contract may lack the necessary element of mutual obligation.
• Legal compliance — it goes without saying that a contract must not involve any illegal activities. It must comply with relevant laws and regulations in order to be considered valid and enforceable. This means that the terms and conditions of the contract should not violate any statutory provisions or public policy.
• Consent — last but not least, the parties entering into a contract should do so freely and willingly. Consent plays a vital role in ensuring the validity of a contract. It means that the parties must agree to the terms and conditions of the contract without any duress, undue influence, or coercion. Consent obtained through fraudulent means or misrepresentation can render a contract voidable.

These components are essential in creating a contract that not only meets the basic requirements but also stands up to legal scrutiny. It is important to carefully consider each of these elements when drafting a contract to ensure its validity and enforceability.

Remember, a well-drafted contract not only protects the rights and interests of the parties involved but also provides a solid foundation for a successful business relationship . So, take the time to understand and incorporate these essential components into your contracts to avoid any potential disputes or legal complications down the line.

Formation and enforceability of contracts

Once all the necessary components are in place, contracts are formed and can be enforced under Singaporean law.

Process of contract formation and the role of mutual consent

The process of contract formation involves mutual consent between the parties. It is crucial to note that contracts can be oral or written, and no specific formality is required. The registrar of companies (ROC) also plays a significant role in ensuring proper documentation and legitimacy for businesses.

Factors that render contracts unenforceable or void

However, there are instances when a contract may not be enforceable or even considered void. Several factors can render a contract unenforceable under Singaporean contract law, including:

• Misrepresentation — if one party has made false statements or concealed material facts, the contract may be rendered unenforceable.
• Mistake — a contract may be void if both parties were mistaken about essential elements of the agreement.
• Illegality — contracts involving illegal activities or those against public policy will not be enforceable.
• Undue influence — if one party exerts undue influence on the other, the contract can be set aside.

Breach of Contract and Remedies

Inevitably, breaches of contract can occur, leaving one party unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations. When a breach occurs, the innocent party may seek remedies to resolve the issue.

Identifying breaches of contract and their consequences

Identifying breaches of contract is essential, as it determines the subsequent consequences.

There are various types of breaches, including:

• Material breach — a significant violation of the contract that goes to the root of the agreement.
• Minor breach — a relatively minor violation that does not substantially affect the overall purpose of the contract.
• Anticipatory breach — if one party indicates their intention not to perform their obligations before the agreed-upon time.

Available remedies for parties affected by a breach

Parties affected by a breach have several remedies available to them, including:

• Rescission — cancelling the contract and restoring the parties to their original positions before entering into the agreement.
• Damages — seeking monetary compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the breach.
• Specific performance — requesting the court to order the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Contractual Disputes and Resolution

In the unfortunate event of a contractual dispute, parties may need to consider other measures such as closing down a company if resolutions are not found.

Exploring methods of resolving contractual disputes in Singapore

One of the primary methods is negotiation, where the parties involved discuss their concerns and seek a mutually acceptable resolution. If negotiations prove unsuccessful, alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation and arbitration can be employed.

Role of negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation

Mediation involves a neutral third party assisting the parties in reaching a settlement. In some cases, businesses may even involve non-executive directors as mediators to aid in dispute resolution.

If all else fails, parties can resort to litigation and have their dispute resolved through the court system. The choice of dispute resolution method will depend on the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issues, and the parties' preferences.

Specific Aspects of Singaporean Contract Law

Although contract law principles apply universally, there are specific considerations and regulations unique to Singapore.

Statutory provisions heavily influence contract interpretation and enforcement in Singapore. The Contract Law Singapore Act, commonly referred to as the Singapore Contracts Act, is one of the key legislation governing the law of contracts in the country. This Act sets out the rules and requirements for forming contracts, interpretation of terms, and remedies for breach.

Another aspect to consider within Singapore's contractual framework is the assignment of contract Singapore law. In Singapore, contracts can typically be assigned unless there's a clause preventing assignment. This means one party can transfer their rights and obligations under the contract to another party, provided the contract allows for such a transfer.

Contracts concluded electronically, commonly known as e-contracts, are also subject to relevant electronic transaction laws. Singapore has enacted legislation to ensure the validity and enforceability of contracts formed electronically , providing a regulatory framework for online transactions.

Examination of unique considerations and regulations in Singapore contract law

Singapore's contract law is not just a mere replication of common law principles. It is interspersed with unique considerations and regulations that specifically address the socio-economic fabric of the nation. For instance, Singaporean contract law considers the multi-cultural business environment, often emphasising good faith negotiations and dealings, especially in business contexts where different cultural values intersect.

One distinctive feature is the strong emphasis on freedom of contract. For those starting or managing a business, understanding the guidelines for company constitution preparation is essential to ensure alignment with Singaporean contract law.

While many jurisdictions emphasise this principle, Singapore enforces it robustly, allowing parties significant autonomy in drafting their agreements. However, this freedom is balanced against public interest considerations, ensuring that the wider societal interests are not compromised.

Singapore has been proactive in adopting measures to tackle emerging trends. For instance, as technology continues to evolve, there have been new regulations introduced to address issues related to digital contracts and online transactions, ensuring that the law remains relevant and up-to-date.

Impact of statutory provisions on contract interpretation and enforcement

Statutory provisions play a pivotal role in guiding the interpretation and enforcement of contracts in Singapore. One classic example is the Singapore Contracts Act, which provides specific guidelines on aspects such as when a contract is formed, the obligations of parties, and the remedies available in case of breaches.

A unique aspect of Singapore's approach is its adaptability to international standards. Recognising Singapore's role as a global business hub, the statutes incorporate internationally recognised principles, ensuring contracts are enforceable not just locally but also in other jurisdictions.

The Electronic Transactions Act is another critical piece of legislation, especially in the digital age. It gives legal recognition to electronic contracts, ensuring that they are just as enforceable as their paper counterparts. This Act has paved the way for businesses to operate seamlessly in the online domain, reaffirming the country's commitment to staying at the forefront of technological advancements.

In essence, while the foundational principles of contract law remain consistent with universal standards, Singapore's statutory provisions ensure that contracts are interpreted and enforced in a manner that reflects the nation's unique cultural, economic, and technological landscape.

Contract Law in Commercial Transactions

Contract law plays a pivotal role in business and commercial transactions in Singapore. It provides a foundation for trade and commerce, protecting the rights and interests of parties engaged in these transactions.

Application of contract law principles in business and commercial dealings

The application of contract law principles ensures that agreements entered into by businesses are clear, enforceable, and fair to all parties involved. Contracts in commercial transactions often contain specific clauses and terms tailored to meet the needs of the industry or market in which the parties operate.

Contractual safeguards for parties engaged in trade and commerce

Parties engaged in trade and commerce often include contractual safeguards to protect their interests. These safeguards may include clauses related to confidentiality, intellectual property rights, indemnity, limitations of liability, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Contract law in Singapore is an intricate and essential branch of law that underpins the legal framework governing agreements. Understanding the key elements, formation, enforceability, breach, and resolution of contracts is vital for individuals and businesses operating in Singapore.

By comprehending the unique features and considerations of Singaporean contract law, parties can ensure their agreements are valid, enforceable, and provide adequate safeguards to protect their rights and interests. Whether engaged in commercial transactions or personal arrangements, a strong grasp of contract law is crucial in facilitating smooth relationships and resolving disputes effectively.

• Better Business

Tips to run your business smarter. Delivered to you monthly.

Related Articles

Fiscal Year: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

In Singapore, companies have the flexibility to select their fiscal year-end based on their business needs. It can align with the calendar year, financial quarter-ends, incorporation anniversary, seasonal cycles, or business cycles. Find out more in this article written by Osome experts.

How a Revenue-Based Accounting Plan Can Help You Grow

A revenue-based accounting plan offers businesses in their first year of business a flexible approach to financial management and an opportunity to grow their revenues. Learn more about how this strategy can benefit your business.

Financial Forecasting: A Guide for New Business Owners

Discover the full potential of your Singapore startup through financial forecasting. Gain reliable insights for success and attract investors confidently with Osome's empowering tools. Read our blog today!

What Is the Singapore Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (WCS)

The Singapore Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) uplifts low-wage workers by incentivizing employers to raise wages. It bridges income gaps, boosts morale, supports businesses in wage increment efforts, fosters productivity, and promotes a more equitable income distribution within companies.

Choosing a Virtual Registered Office Address for My Company

Explore the benefits of choosing a virtual registered office address for your Singapore-based company. Learn how it provides flexibility, enhances professionalism, and saves costs. Find out how to select the right virtual office, and discover the cheapest options available in Singapore.

• go to page 1
• go to page 2
• go to page 3
• go to page 4
• go to page 5

Join the Osome family!

Want in on industry insights, how-to guides, and exclusive offers? Well, you know what to do 👇

We’re using cookies! What does it mean?

Assigning rights where a contract contains a non-assignment clause

December 13, 2023 > Singapore >

This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.  

The High Court of Singapore has recently decided that a non-assignment clause in a contract did not prohibit the assignment of non-contractual (or tortious) rights arising out of or in connection with the contract. This article considers the practical implications of that decision.

Introduction

Can a party to a contract assign non-contractual rights arising out of the contract to a third party, notwithstanding the existence of a non-assignment clause in the contract?

The validity and enforceability of such an assignment were recently considered by the Singapore High Court (“HC”) in  Re Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation)  [2023] SGHC 330 (“ Ocean Tankers ”).

Contractual vs non-contractual rights

First, it is useful to understand the difference between “contractual” rights and “non-contractual” (or “tortious”) rights.  We will use the terms “non-contractual” and “tortious” interchangeably in this article to refer to the latter category of rights.

“Contractual” rights are rights which are set out in the provisions of the contract, reflecting the express agreement of the parties to the contract. Conversely, “non-contractual” rights are rights which arise as a matter of law and which are connected with (or which arise from) that contract, but are not specifically provided for in the text of a contract.

Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (the “ Company ”) was placed under judicial management in August 2020. In the interim period between Company’s judicial management and its subsequent winding-up, the judicial managers of the Company (the “ JMs ”) brought actions concerning purported assignments of claims made by a creditor of the Company (the “ Assignor ”) in favour of a third-party debtor of the Company (the “ Debtor ”).

One of the issues the HC had to consider concerned the validity of an assignment of non-contractual claims made by the Assignor in favour of the Debtor, and whether that assignment was enforceable against the Company.

The assignment in question sought to assign the Assignor’s rights, title, interests and benefits in and to (amongst other things):

• a storage agreement (the “ Storage Agreement ”) made between the Assignor and the Company;
• a document (the “ Document ”) issued by the Company evidencing the existence and transfer of certain cargo; and
• any and all causes of action the Assignor had or may have had against the Company in connection with or arising from (amongst other things) the Document.

As indicated above, there were various assignments which were purported to be made by the Assignor which were being challenged by the Company.  However, for the purposes of this article, the salient assignment was the purported assignment of the Assignor’s causes of action against the Company in connection with or arising from the Document, as referred to in paragraph (3) above (which the HC referred to as the “ Vessel [B] Document Claim ”).

The court had to consider if the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim was valid in light of the non-assignment clause set out in the Storage Agreement (the “ Non-Assignment Clause ”).  The HC held that the Document was “not separate and independent from the Storage Agreement”, implying that the Document was subject to the provisions of the Storage Agreement, including the restrictions on assignment set out in the Non-Assignment Clause.

Did the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim breach the Non-Assignment Clause?

The Non-Assignment Clause was in the following terms:

The HC noted that the text of the Non-Assignment Clause required the Company’s consent for the assignment and novation of rights under the Storage Agreement (and, by extension, the Document), and the parties did not dispute that no such consent was obtained.

The HC was of the view that there were “ clear indications in the  [Non-Assignment Clause]  itself that it relates to contractual rights but not tortious rights ”. Three reasons were given by the HC in reaching this conclusion.

First, the Non-Assignment Clause referred to “novation”, which the HC noted is a process “ by which a  contract  between the original contracting parties is discharged through mutual consent and substituted with a new contract between the new parties ”. In the HC’s view, when the Non-Assignment Clause referred to the novation of “rights and obligations”, this must be understood to mean  contractual  rights and obligations, and the Non-Assignment Clause did not prohibit the assignment or novation of  tortious  rights and obligations.

Second, the heading of the Non-Assignment Clause – “TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF  AGREEMENT ” (emphasis added) – indicated the intention of the parties for the clause to cover only contractual rights.

Third, the HC noted that the Storage Agreement itself referred to rights other than contractual rights. For example, the Storage Agreement made references to claims “ in tort , under contract or otherwise at law” as well as obligations or liabilities “under or   arising  from [the Storage] Agreement or at law”. The HC was accordingly of the view that the Assignor and the Company (i.e., the original parties to the Storage Agreement) intended to refer specifically to  contractual  rights and obligations where the Non-Assignment Clause specifically referred to rights “under” the Agreement.

On the facts, the HC found that the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim was a tortious claim and, consequently, held that the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim was outside the ambit of, and did not breach, the Non-Assignment Clause.

In reaching its conclusion, the HC considered the judgment of the English High Court in  Burleigh House (PTC) Ltd v Irwin Mitchell LLP  (“ Burleigh House ”) [1]   which held that the non-assignment clause in that case prohibited both assignments of contractual  and  tortious rights.  However, the HC declined to follow  Burleigh House  for the following reasons:

• first,  Burleigh House  concerned assignments in the context of a former client’s claim against a law firm for professional negligence. The HC was of the view that the implications that such an assignment would have on the solicitor-client relationship were a significant consideration for the English High Court in its interpretation of the non-assignment clause in the law firm’s retainer. The HC was quite clear that this concern did not apply in the context of the case before it and, accordingly, distinguished  Burleigh House ;
• second,  Burleigh House  sought to apply the approach taken towards the construction of  arbitration  clauses, as set out in  Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2]  (“ Fiona Trust ”). That case held that rational businesspeople who agree to such clauses, regardless of whether they refer to disputes “arising under”, “in connection with” or “under” a contract, intend  any   dispute  arising out of their relationship to be decided by the same tribunal. While noting that  Fiona Trust  had been found by the Singapore Court of Appeal to apply to jurisdiction clauses generally [3] , the HC did not agree that the approach towards the interpretation of arbitration clauses as set out in  Fiona Trust  should  ipso facto  apply to other clauses in a contract or to non-assignment clauses generally. In the HC’s view, a non-assignment clause is not a dispute resolution clause and is intended to perform a very different function.

Implications for the drafting of non-assignment clauses

Ocean Tankers  illustrates the potential limits of a non-assignment clause under Singapore law and provides valuable guidance as to what type of rights and obligations parties can assign – or can prohibit the assignment of.

The judgment does, however, indicate that appropriate drafting  can  extend non-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict the transfer of non-contractual rights. Such a prohibition on the assignment of non-contractual rights would work in tandem with the prohibition of an assignment of contractual rights under the agreement, such that  any  rights related to the agreement can be prevented from being assigned.

Ocean Tankers  has practical implications. For example, some industry standard form documents use language which is similar to that of the Non-Assignment Clause, in prohibiting assignments of rights or obligations “under” certain specifically identified documents.  Ocean Tankers  indicates that a Singapore court would construe this as applying only to contractual rights, and not to non-contractual/tortious ones.

Prior to  Ocean Tankers , parties to a contract would not have considered that such a clause would treat contractual and non-contractual rights differently and would have assumed that such drafting would apply to both categories of rights; there now appears to be a need to re-look and re-draft these clauses to reflect the contracting parties’ intentions.

Having expended considerable effort to explain why the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim did not breach the provisions of the Non-Assignment Clause, the HC ultimately found that the assignment of the Vessel [B] Document Claim was a “ champertous assignment of a bare right to litigate and therefore void and/or ineffective against the Company, the JMs and the liquidators  [of the Company]”.

This, however, does not have any bearing on (and should not distract us from) the HC’s conclusion that the Non-Assignment Clause did not prohibit the assignment of non-contractual rights.

Link to the full article: Assigning rights where a contract contains a non-assignment clause (cms-lawnow.com)

Co-authored by: Kerith Cheriyan, Practice Trainee, Holborn Law LLC

[1]   Burleigh House (PTC) Ltd v Irwin Mitchell LLP  [2021] EWHC 834

[2]   Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov  [2007] Bus LR 1719

[3]   Bunge SA and another v Shrikant Bhasi and other appeals  [2020] 2 SLR 1223

More from CMS

The Government restricts bans on assignment

United Kingdom |  Publication |  November 2018

Legislation now in force preventing parties from prohibiting the assignment of receivables under certain contracts.

At the moment, a contract can prohibit or restrict the parties’ ability to assign or transfer rights created under the contract. The extent of the restriction is a matter of interpretation of the clause concerned. If one of the parties to the contract attempts to assign the benefit of the contract in breach of the restriction, the purported assignment is ineffective.

One of the key assets of any business is its receivables, and restrictions on assignment can prevent the parties from factoring receivables or otherwise raising finance on them. The Government has decided that it should be easier for businesses to raise finance on their receivables. Accordingly the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 allows regulations to be made to invalidate restrictions on the assignment of receivables in particular types of contract. The regulations have now been made. They are contained in The Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018. Draft regulations published in July, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament and are now in force.

What types of contracts do the Regulations apply to?

The Regulations apply to contracts for the supply of goods, services or intangible assets under which the supplier is entitled to be paid money. But there are a number of important exclusions from their application, including the following:

• They only apply to contracts entered into on or after 31 December 2018.
• They only apply where the person who supplies the goods, services or intangible assets concerned, and is therefore entitled to the receivable, is a small or medium-sized enterprise which is not a special purpose vehicle. Whether or not an entity qualifies in any particular case requires a detailed examination of the precise wording of the
• Regulations. Counter-intuitively, the test is not applied at the time the contract is entered into, but at the time the assignment takes place.
• There is a specific exemption for contracts “for, or entered into in connection with, prescribed financial services”: These are widely defined to include “any service of a financial nature”.
• There are specific exclusions for particular types of contract, including certain commodities, project finance, energy, land, share purchase and business purchase contracts and operating leases.
• As a general rule, it would seem that the Regulations only apply to contracts governed by English law or the law of Northern Ireland, but they prevent the parties from choosing a foreign law if it can be established that the purpose of doing so was to evade the Regulations.
• The Regulations do not apply if none of the parties to the contract has entered into it in the course of carrying on a business in the United Kingdom.

What is the effect of the Regulations?

The Regulations provide that “a term in a contract has no effect to the extent that it prohibits or imposes a condition, or other restriction , on the assignment of a receivable arising under that contract or any other contract between the same parties.”

A receivable is the right to be paid any amount under a contract for the supply of goods, services, or intangible assets. The Regulations do not prevent the parties from restricting the assignment of other contract rights.

More difficult is to establish what is meant by assignment. Receivables are transferred in various ways in practice. Sometimes the transfer is outright (for instance by way of sale); and sometimes it is by way of security (for instance to secure a loan). The transfer may be effected by a statutory assignment, an equitable assignment, a charge or a trust. “Assignment” is not defined in the Regulations, and so there is some doubt as to which of these transactions are covered.

Although charges are not expressly referred to, they might be covered by the expression “assignment” if it is given a broad interpretation. But because of the uncertainty, the best course is to take an assignment by way of security over a receivable where there is, or might be, a restriction. That way, it is clear that the Regulations do apply.

Non-assignment clauses come in a variety of forms. They will be covered by the Regulations if they prohibit or impose a condition , or other restriction on the assignment of a receivable. The Regulations expressly invalidate terms which prevent the assignee from determining the validity or value of the receivable or their ability to enforce it. Whether or not the Regulations apply in any particular case will require an analysis of the precise terms of the restriction.

The Regulations will be of particular importance to businesses involved in the financing of receivables. And they will also be of concern to buyers because they will override their contractual protections.

• Financial institutions

Practice area:

• Banking and finance

Recent publications

Publication

London International Disputes Week

London International Disputes Week (LIDW) brings together stakeholders across London’s dispute resolution community to debate and explore the key issues and topics, and to help drive awareness and best practice globally.

Global | Monday, June 3 - Friday, June 7, 2024

Insurance Foresight

The ongoing conflicts and further geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, coupled with upcoming elections in a number of key countries including the US and the UK, make 2024 challenging to predict what impact this will have on the insurance sector.

Global | April 18, 2024

The European Commission’s prohibition of Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL

On 6 September 2022, the European Commission (EC) prohibited Illumina’s acquisition of Grail, bringing to an end the administrative stage of a legal saga that has attracted interest beyond competition law specialists.

Global | April 17, 2024

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Deutschland (Deutsch)
• Germany (English)
• The Netherlands
• Türkiye
• United Kingdom
• South Africa
• Hong Kong SAR
• Marshall Islands
• Nordic region

Securitisation Laws and Regulations Singapore 2023-2024

ICLG - Securitisation Laws and Regulations - Singapore Chapter covers common issues in securitisation laws and regulations – including receivables contracts, receivables purchase agreements, asset sales, security issues, insolvency laws, special rules, regulatory issues and taxation.

Chapter Content Free Access

1. receivables contracts, 2. choice of law – receivables contracts, 3. choice of law – receivables purchase agreement, 4. asset sales, 5. security issues, 6. insolvency laws, 7. special rules, 8. regulatory issues, 9. taxation.

1.1        Formalities. In order to create an enforceable debt obligation of the obligor to the seller: (a) is it necessary that the sales of goods or services are evidenced by a formal receivables contract; (b) are invoices alone sufficient; and (c) can a binding contract arise as a result of the behaviour of the parties?

Under Singapore law, it is generally not necessary for a sale of goods or services to be evidenced by a formal receivables contract in order to create an enforceable debt obligation of the obligor to the seller.  As illustrated in Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the debt obligation of the obligor to the seller may also be enforced if parties can demonstrate that there was an oral or implied agreement from the conduct of parties, supported by consideration.  It would nonetheless still be advisable from an evidentiary viewpoint to have a receivable contract reduced to writing.

It should be noted, however, that certain debt obligations must be evidenced by a written contract in order for the same to be enforceable against the obligor.  For example, under Section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1909, a contract for the sale or other disposition of immovable property or any interest in such property must be evidenced in writing.  Furthermore, an agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof (i.e. the sale of goods and services at a future date) must also be made in writing, failing which no action may be brought on the agreement.

The binding receivables contract may be implied by the conduct of the parties notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement.  The issuance of an invoice by the seller may be construed as giving rise to a debt obligation especially where it can be established from the surrounding circumstances that parties had, by their conduct, implicitly agreed to the sale of goods and services.  A typical example is where parties have a pre-existing or ongoing business relationship where the seller has issued similar invoices as part of the transaction for the sale of goods and services that have been previously accepted by the obligor as giving rise to an enforceable debt obligation.

1.2        Consumer Protections. Do your jurisdiction’s laws: (a) limit rates of interest on consumer credit, loans or other kinds of receivables; (b) provide a statutory right to interest on late payments; (c) permit consumers to cancel receivables for a specified period of time; or (d) provide other noteworthy rights to consumers with respect to receivables owing by them?

There is no express limit on the rate of interest on consumer credit, loans or other kinds of receivables except where the credit, loan or other kinds of receivable has been extended by a “moneylender” as defined under Section 2 of the Moneylenders Act 2008 (the “ Moneylenders Act ”).  However, the following guiding principles are generally considered when determining whether the interest rate imposed should be enforced:

• the interest rate imposed represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not an in terrorem penalty;
• the terms of the contract involving a person dealing as a consumer are reasonable within the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977;
• the interest rate is imposed as part of a bona fide contract and not a sham transaction in order to circumvent any statutory or other licensing requirements applicable for moneylending; and
• the interest rate imposed does not lead to the transaction being an extortionate credit transaction within the meaning of Section 366 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, which may be voided by the court if it was entered into within three years before the commencement of the bankruptcy of the consumer.

The Moneylenders Act does not apply to an “excluded moneylender” (for example, banks, credit societies, pawnbrokers or persons who lend solely to corporations or business/real estate investment trusts or who do not carry on the business of moneylending) or an “exempt moneylender”.

Insofar as licensed moneylending is concerned, the prescribed maximum fees/rates chargeable on a non-business loan by a licensed moneylender under the Moneylenders Rules 2009 are as follows:

• nominal interest rate of 4% per month; and
• late interest at the nominal interest rate of 4% per month.

Late fees, administrative fees, variation fees, unsuccessful deductions, etc. in relation to a loan (other than business loans) are also provided for and subject to certain restrictions as to how much may be charged.

Under Section 37(1) of the Moneylenders Act, a court may (in the course of proceedings brought by a licensed moneylender for the recovery of a loan or enforcement of a contract for a loan or any guarantee or security given for a loan) re-open moneylending transactions where the rate of interest or late interest charged is deemed to be excessive and the transaction is unconscionable and substantially unfair.  Section 37(4) of the Moneylenders Act extends the above-mentioned powers of the court to any proceedings for relief brought by a borrower, a surety or other person liable to repay a loan to a licensed moneylender, and Section 37(5) of the Moneylenders Act extends the same powers to the Official Assignee when determining whether the debt or liability claimed by a licensed moneylender against a borrower in his bankruptcy is proved, and its value.

The Rules of Court 2021 further provide that a default rate of interest applies on judgment debts and costs at the interest rate of 5.33% per annum .

Insofar as consumer protection is concerned, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Cancellation of Contracts) Regulations 2009 issued under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 provides for the right of consumers to cancel certain regulated contracts (which generally refer to direct sales contracts, long-term holiday product contracts, time share or time share-related contracts) within prescribed cancellation periods of five days to up to six months in certain cases.  The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 also provides certain remedies to consumers in relation to unfair practices of suppliers in relation to a consumer transaction, and “lemon law” rights for the repair, replacement, refund or reduction in price of defective products sold to a consumer.

1.3        Government Receivables. Where the receivables contract has been entered into with the government or a government agency, are there different requirements and laws that apply to the sale or collection of those receivables?

Under Section 2 of the Government Contracts Act 1966 (the “ Government Contracts Act ”), all contracts including contracts for the sale of goods and services entered into with the Singapore government or a government agency and reduced in writing must be made in the name of the government and may be signed by a Minister or by any public officer duly authorised in writing by the Minister for Finance, either specially in any particular case, or generally for all contracts below a certain value in his Ministry or department.

Claims against the Singapore government or a government agency would be subject to the provisions of the Government Contracts Act.  Insofar as civil claims against the Government or government agency are concerned (including claims for receivables under a contract for the sale and purchase of goods and services), such claims will generally be treated the same as any similar claim made against a non-governmental entity.

2.1        No Law Specified. If the seller and the obligor do not specify a choice of law in their receivables contract, what are the main principles in your jurisdiction that will determine the governing law of the contract?

Where no choice of law has been specified in a receivables contract, the Singapore courts will firstly consider whether the intention of the parties with regard to the governing law can be inferred from the contract or the surrounding circumstances at the time when the contract was made.

Where a common intention of the parties to adopt a particular governing law cannot be inferred from the contract or the surrounding circumstances, the Singapore courts will have to determine the objective proper law applicable to the contract, being the law with the closest and most real connection with the transaction.  In doing so, the Singapore courts will examine the connecting factors (including but not limited to where the parties are situated and where the obligations under the contract are to be performed) and arrive at what a reasonable man ought to have intended the governing law to be, had he thought about the matter at the time when the contract was made.

2.2        Base Case. If the seller and the obligor are both resident in your jurisdiction, and the transactions giving rise to the receivables and the payment of the receivables take place in your jurisdiction, and the seller and the obligor choose the law of your jurisdiction to govern the receivables contract, is there any reason why a court in your jurisdiction would not give effect to their choice of law?

Where the parties have expressly situated the contractual governing law to be Singapore law, the Singapore courts will generally uphold the same unless the choice of law was made in bad faith, or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

2.3        Freedom to Choose Foreign Law of Non-Resident Seller or Obligor. If the seller is resident in your jurisdiction but the obligor is not, or if the obligor is resident in your jurisdiction but the seller is not, and the seller and the obligor choose the foreign law of the obligor/seller to govern their receivables contract, will a court in your jurisdiction give effect to the choice of foreign law? Are there any limitations to the recognition of foreign law (such as public policy or mandatory principles of law) that would typically apply in commercial relationships such as that between the seller and the obligor under the receivables contract?

Where the parties have expressly stipulated the contractual governing law to be a foreign law other than Singapore law, the Singapore courts will generally uphold the same notwithstanding that one or more of the parties to the contract are resident in Singapore, unless the choice of foreign law was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

For example, the parties may be deemed to have acted in bad faith where the choice of foreign law was made deliberately for the purpose of evading the operation of Singapore law, which is intended to be mandatorily applicable in Singapore to the parties and/or the transaction.  Section 27(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that the Act is to apply notwithstanding any contract term purporting to apply the law of some country outside Singapore where either: (a) the term appears to the court, or the arbitrator or arbiter, to have been imposed wholly or mainly for the purpose of enabling the party imposing it to evade the operation of the Act; or (b) in the making of the contract, one of the parties dealt as consumer, and he was then habitually resident in Singapore, and the essential steps necessary for the making of the contract were taken there, whether by him or by others on his behalf.

Singapore has enacted the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (which came into effect on 1 October 2016), giving effect to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, providing for the recognition and enforcement of choice of court agreements in relation to courts of contracting states.

3.1        Base Case. Does your jurisdiction’s law generally require the sale of receivables to be governed by the same law as the law governing the receivables themselves? If so, does that general rule apply irrespective of which law governs the receivables (i.e., your jurisdiction’s laws or foreign laws)?

There is no requirement under Singapore law for a contract for the sale of receivables to be governed by the same law governing the receivables themselves.  Parties are free to choose a contractual governing law that is different from the law governing the receivables, and the Singapore courts will generally uphold the choice of law of the parties unless the choice of law was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.  Notwithstanding the choice of contractual governing law, where the receivables are payable in Singapore, Singapore law may still apply mandatorily to certain issues including the assignability, perfection, enforceability and recovery of the receivables in Singapore.

3.2        Example 1: If (a) the seller and the obligor are located in your jurisdiction, (b) the receivable is governed by the law of your jurisdiction, (c) the seller sells the receivable to a purchaser located in a third country, (d) the seller and the purchaser choose the law of your jurisdiction to govern the receivables purchase agreement, and (e) the sale complies with the requirements of your jurisdiction, will a court in your jurisdiction recognise that sale as being effective against the seller, the obligor and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller and the obligor)?

In the absence of any qualifying information, the Singapore courts will generally recognise such a sale as being effective in Singapore as against the seller, the obligor and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller and the obligor) unless the choice of Singapore law to govern the receivables purchase agreement was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

The relevant laws in Singapore will also apply in the determination of the following issues: (a) the capacity of the parties located in Singapore to enter into or perform their respective obligations under the contract; (b) the validity and perfection of the sale of the receivables by the seller to the purchaser; and (c) the enforceability of the obligations of the parties in Singapore especially in the event of their insolvency.

3.3        Example 2: Assuming that the facts are the same as Example 1, but either the obligor or the purchaser or both are located outside your jurisdiction, will a court in your jurisdiction recognise that sale as being effective against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller), or must the foreign law requirements of the obligor’s country or the purchaser’s country (or both) be taken into account?

Similar to Example 1, the Singapore courts will generally recognise the sale as being effective in Singapore as against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller) located in Singapore unless the choice of Singapore law to govern the receivables purchase agreement was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

The relevant laws in Singapore will also apply in the determination of the following issues: (a) capacity of the parties located in Singapore to enter into or perform their respective obligations under the contract; (b) the validity and perfection of the sale of the receivables by the seller to the purchaser; and (c) the enforceability of the obligations of the parties in Singapore especially in the event of their insolvency.

The law governing the receivables will apply in determining questions relating to the assignability, perfection, enforceability and recovery of the receivables.

The foreign law requirements of the obligor’s country or the purchaser’s country may be relevant when determining the capacity of the obligor or purchaser to enter into or perform their respective obligations under the contract, and the enforceability of the obligations of the obligor or purchaser in their respective jurisdictions, especially where there are mandatory laws applicable in the event of their insolvency.

3.4        Example 3: If (a) the seller is located in your jurisdiction but the obligor is located in another country, (b) the receivable is governed by the law of the obligor’s country, (c) the seller sells the receivable to a purchaser located in a third country, (d) the seller and the purchaser choose the law of the obligor’s country to govern the receivables purchase agreement, and (e) the sale complies with the requirements of the obligor’s country, will a court in your jurisdiction recognise that sale as being effective against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller) without the need to comply with your jurisdiction’s own sale requirements?

Provided that it has been established that the sale is valid and enforceable under the foreign governing law of the contract and the Singapore courts have jurisdiction, the Singapore courts will generally recognise the sale as being effective as against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller) located in Singapore without the need to comply with the sale requirements under Singapore law, unless the choice of foreign governing law was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

The foreign law governing the receivables will apply in determining questions relating to the assignability, perfection, enforceability and recovery of the receivables.

The relevant laws in Singapore will, however, apply in the determination of the following issues: (a) capacity of the seller to enter into or perform its obligations under the contract; (b) the validity and perfection of the sale of the receivables by the seller to the purchaser located in a third country; and (c) the enforceability of the obligations of the parties in Singapore especially in the event of their insolvency.

3.5        Example 4: If (a) the obligor is located in your jurisdiction but the seller is located in another country, (b) the receivable is governed by the law of the seller’s country, (c) the seller and the purchaser choose the law of the seller’s country to govern the receivables purchase agreement, and (d) the sale complies with the requirements of the seller’s country, will a court in your jurisdiction recognise that sale as being effective against the obligor and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the obligor) without the need to comply with your jurisdiction’s own sale requirements?

Provided that it has been established that the sale is valid and enforceable under the foreign governing law of the contract and the Singapore courts have jurisdiction, the Singapore courts will generally recognise the sale as being effective as against the obligor and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the obligor) located in Singapore without the need to comply with the sale requirements under Singapore law, unless the choice of foreign governing law was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

The relevant laws in Singapore will, however, apply in the determination of the following issues: (a) capacity of the obligor to enter into or perform its obligations under the contract; and (b) the enforceability of the obligations of the obligor in Singapore especially in the event of their insolvency.

3.6        Example 5: If (a) the seller is located in your jurisdiction (irrespective of the obligor’s location), (b) the receivable is governed by the law of your jurisdiction, (c) the seller sells the receivable to a purchaser located in a third country, (d) the seller and the purchaser choose the law of the purchaser’s country to govern the receivables purchase agreement, and (e) the sale complies with the requirements of the purchaser’s country, will a court in your jurisdiction recognise that sale as being effective against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller, any obligor located in your jurisdiction and any third party creditor or insolvency administrator of any such obligor)?

Provided that it has been established that the sale is valid and enforceable under the foreign governing law of the contract and the Singapore courts have jurisdiction, the Singapore courts will generally recognise the sale as being effective as against the seller and other third parties (such as creditors or insolvency administrators of the seller, any obligor in Singapore and any third party creditor or insolvency administrator of any such obligor) in Singapore without the need to comply with the sale requirements under Singapore law, unless the choice of foreign governing law was made in bad faith or is otherwise illegal or contrary to public policy in Singapore.

However, as the governing law of the receivables, Singapore law will apply in determining questions relating to the assignability, perfection, enforceability and recovery of the receivables.

The relevant laws in Singapore will also apply in the determination of the following issues: (a) the capacity of the parties located in Singapore to enter into or perform their respective obligations under the contract; (b) the validity and perfection of the sale of the receivables by the seller to the purchaser located in a third country; and (c) the enforceability of the obligations of all parties located in Singapore especially in the event of their insolvency.

4.1        Sale Methods Generally. In your jurisdiction what are the customary methods for a seller to sell receivables to a purchaser? What is the customary terminology – is it called a sale, transfer, assignment or something else?

Under Singapore law, there is no specific terminology that must be used in order for a seller to sell receivables to a purchaser.  However, a sale of receivables (whether current or future) usually takes the form of an absolute assignment from the seller to the purchaser in exchange for which the purchaser provides a consideration (which may be pecuniary or otherwise) to the seller.  It is also not uncommon for a seller to assign to the purchaser receivables together with the contract rights conferred onto the seller under the underlying sale agreement to enforce the terms of the same against the obligor.

A legal assignment of receivables from a seller to a purchaser under Singapore law requires that:

• the underlying contract between the seller and the obligor under which the receivables are payable permits assignment of such receivables;
• the assignment must be absolute;
• the assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor; and
• notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the obligor.

If any of the above requirements are not met, the assignment of receivables may still be recognised under Singapore law as an equitable assignment.

4.2        Perfection Generally. What formalities are required generally for perfecting a sale of receivables? Are there any additional or other formalities required for the sale of receivables to be perfected against any subsequent good faith purchasers for value of the same receivables from the seller?

The formalities required under Singapore law for perfecting a sale of receivables are as set out in question 4.1 above.  A party who has received a legal assignment of the receivables will have priority over any subsequent good faith purchaser for value of the same receivables from the seller without the need to take any further steps.

A subsequent legal assignment of receivables in good faith, for value and without notice of a preceding equitable assignment over the same receivables will take priority over such a preceding equitable assignment, unless the subsequent purchaser was not bona fide or was aware at the time of the assignment to that subsequent purchaser of the earlier equitable interest in those receivables.

4.3        Perfection for Promissory Notes, etc. What additional or different requirements for sale and perfection apply to sales of promissory notes, mortgage loans, consumer loans or marketable debt securities?

Promissory notes can be sold and transferred by delivery (if it is a bearer instrument) or by delivery and endorsement (if it is a negotiable instrument).  A promissory note is categorised as a “bill of exchange” under Section 3(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1949 (the “ Bills of Exchange Act ”) and is subject to the provisions thereunder.  Under Section 21 of the Bills of Exchange Act, the holder of a bill is presumed to have received valid delivery of the same from the drawer, acceptor or indorser until the contrary is proven.

Loans including mortgage and consumer loans can be sold and transferred by way of assignment.  The requirements for the legal assignment of loans are similar to that for a legal assignment of receivables as set out under question 4.1 above.  Where the mortgage loan is secured by a mortgage over an asset: (i) which requires that; or (ii) in respect of which, legal title is derived from registration with any authority or registry (for example, for immovable property and ships, etc.), and which is also to be transferred together with the loan, registration of the transfer of the mortgage will need to be lodged with the appropriate authority or registry (e.g. Singapore Land Authority, Singapore Ship Registry, etc.).  In addition, where the mortgagor is a company, particulars of the mortgage will need to be lodged with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore.

Marketable debt securities can be sold and transferred by giving instructions for this transfer from the account of the seller to the account of the purchaser in the clearing system.

4.4        Obligor Notification or Consent. Must the seller or the purchaser notify obligors of the sale of receivables in order for the sale to be effective against the obligors and/or creditors of the seller? Must the seller or the purchaser obtain the obligors’ consent to the sale of receivables in order for the sale to be an effective sale against the obligors? Whether or not notice is required to perfect a sale, are there any benefits to giving notice – such as cutting off obligor set-off rights and other obligor defences?

A sale of receivables by the seller must be notified in writing to the obligor in order for the same to be effective as against the obligor.  The sale of receivables is effective as against the creditors of the seller notwithstanding the absence of a written notification to the obligor.

While it is customary for the seller as the contracting party to give notice to the obligor, a purchaser may also notify the obligor if the seller fails to do so.  The consent or acknowledgment of the obligor to the sale of the receivables is expressly prohibited in the contract between the seller and the obligor under which the receivables arise.

The giving of the written notice to the obligor of the sale of the receivables entitles the purchaser to certain benefits including:

• ensuring that payment of the receivables is made to the purchaser instead of the seller, and that failure of the obligor to do so, subsequent to the notification, does not constitute satisfactory discharge of the obligations of the obligor under the underlying contract;
• “cutting off” the set-off rights of the obligor (other than those which have already accrued prior to the notice of assignment being given);
• the purchaser will have the right to seek recourse directly against the obligor and its creditors for payment of the receivables without joining the seller; and
• the purchaser will be able to claim priority to the receivables as against any subsequent good faith purchaser of the same receivables, for value without notice of the prior sale.

4.5        Notice Mechanics. If notice is to be delivered to obligors, whether at the time of sale or later, are there any requirements regarding the form the notice must take or how it must be delivered? Is there any time limit beyond which notice is ineffective – for example, can a notice of sale be delivered after the sale, and can notice be delivered after insolvency proceedings have commenced against the obligor or the seller? Does the notice apply only to specific receivables or can it apply to any and all (including future) receivables? Are there any other limitations or considerations?

There is no prescribed form for the notice of sale and no specific method required for the delivery of the same.  The only requirement is for the notice to be made in writing.

There is no limit beyond which the notice will be ineffective.  The notice of sale can be delivered at any time subsequent to the sale including after insolvency proceedings have commenced against the obligor or the seller.  However, the sale will be inchoate until the notice is given and the purchaser will lose his priority as against subsequent good faith purchasers of the same receivables for value without notice of the prior sale.

A notice of the sale of receivables can apply for specific receivables as well as any and all future receivables.

There may be limitations in the enforcement of the purchaser’s rights to the receivables in a situation where the notice is given after insolvency proceedings have commenced against the obligor or the seller, since the assets of the seller and obligor will be subject to the insolvency regime.

4.6        Restrictions on Assignment – General Interpretation. Will a restriction in a receivables contract to the effect that “None of the [seller’s] rights or obligations under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned without the consent of the [obligor]” be interpreted as prohibiting a transfer of receivables by the seller to the purchaser? Is the result the same if the restriction says “This Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by the [seller] without the consent of the [obligor]” (i.e., the restriction does not refer to rights or obligations)? Is the result the same if the restriction says “The obligations of the [seller] under this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by the [seller] without the consent of the [obligor]” (i.e., the restriction does not refer to rights)?

A restriction in either of the first two examples is likely to be construed as prohibiting a transfer of receivables by the seller to the purchaser unless consent of the obligor has been obtained.

However, a restriction in a receivables contract to the effect that “The obligations of the [seller] under this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by the [seller] without the consent of the [obligor]” is not likely to be construed as prohibiting the sale and transfer of receivables as the same would be treated as a right conferred on the seller and not an obligation.  It is not uncommon for only the rights and benefits of the seller to be transferred to the purchaser but with the obligations to remain with the seller under the receivables contract.

4.7        Restrictions on Assignment; Liability to Obligor. If any of the restrictions in question 4.6 are binding, or if the receivables contract explicitly prohibits an assignment of receivables or “seller’s rights” under the receivables contract, are such restrictions generally enforceable in your jurisdiction? Are there exceptions to this rule (e.g., for contracts between commercial entities)? If your jurisdiction recognises restrictions on sale or assignment of receivables and the seller nevertheless sells receivables to the purchaser, will either the seller or the purchaser be liable to the obligor for breach of contract or tort, or on any other basis?

If the receivables contract explicitly prohibits an assignment of receivables or the “seller’s rights” under the receivables contract, whether in the wording set out in question 4.6 above or otherwise, the Singapore courts will generally enforce such restriction.  As far as we are aware, there are no exceptions to this rule.

Where such restrictions are present, but the seller nevertheless sells receivables to the purchaser, the seller (as party to the receivables contract) will be liable to the obligor for breach of contract.  If the purchaser is also aware of the restriction but nonetheless procures or induces the seller to breach the receivables contract by the sale of the receivables, the purchaser may be made liable for inducing the breach of contract.

4.8        Identification. Must the sale document specifically identify each of the receivables to be sold? If so, what specific information is required (e.g., obligor name, invoice number, invoice date, payment date, etc.)? Do the receivables being sold have to share objective characteristics? Alternatively, if the seller sells all of its receivables to the purchaser, is this sufficient identification of receivables? Finally, if the seller sells all of its receivables other than receivables owing by one or more specifically identified obligors, is this sufficient identification of receivables?

There is no requirement for any specific information to be provided so long as the sale document provides sufficient details to enable the receivables to be clearly identified at the time of the sale or as and when any future receivables sold under the receivables contract come into existence.  This is a question of fact.

The sale of “all receivables”, whether or not qualified by the exclusion of certain specifically identified receivables or not, may not always be sufficient identification of the receivables intended to be sold by the seller.  In the absence of clarity on what constitutes “receivables” for the purposes of the sale, the use of the terms such as “all receivables” without an accompanying definition may give rise to disputes between the parties as to the scope of receivables to which the purchaser is entitled under the sale.

4.9        Recharacterisation Risk. If the parties describe their transaction in the relevant documents as an outright sale and explicitly state their intention that it be treated as an outright sale, will this description and statement of intent automatically be respected or is there a risk that the transaction could be characterised by a court as a loan with (or without) security? If recharacterisation risk exists, what characteristics of the transaction might prevent the transfer from being treated as an outright sale? Among other things, to what extent may the seller retain any of the following without jeopardising treatment as an outright sale: (a) credit risk; (b) interest rate risk; (c) control of collections of receivables; (d) a right of repurchase/redemption; (e) a right to the residual profits within the purchaser; or (f) any other term?

The Singapore courts would generally treat a transaction as being a genuine and outright sale where the relevant documents explicitly state the parties’ intention as such.  That being said, a court is entitled to and would examine the facts, circumstances and effect of the transaction notwithstanding its express provisions.

There is a risk of recharacterisation of the sale as a loan with (or without) security, where it appears to the Singapore courts from the express wording of the sale contract or the surrounding circumstances that the parties had an inappropriate or dishonest intention of entering into a sham transaction, whether for the purpose of circumventing any applicable laws or to disguise what is substantially a loan with (or without) security or otherwise.

A purported sale where the credit risks and interest rate risks remain with the seller may be construed as being inconsistent with the sale of the receivables to the purchaser.  Granting the seller the right to repurchase or redeem the receivables are also indicative of the sale being intended more as a security rather than an outright sale.  The retention by the seller of control over collection of the receivables or the right to residual profits within the purchaser may or may not, depending on the circumstances, contribute towards the sale being treated as a loan with (or without) security.  The Singapore courts typically consider these factors along with any other facts that, in their opinion, may be relevant in inferring the true intention of the parties.

4.10      Continuous Sales of Receivables. Can the seller agree in an enforceable manner to continuous sales of receivables (i.e., sales of receivables as and when they arise)? Would such an agreement survive and continue to transfer receivables to the purchaser following the seller’s insolvency?

A seller can agree in an enforceable manner to a continuous sale of receivables so long as the formalities required to perfect the sale are complied with.  In order to ensure the purchaser’s priority to the receivables, notice of the sale should be given to each and every obligor from whom the receivables sold are payable as and when the obligation arises.

Such an agreement can survive and continue to transfer receivables to the purchaser following the seller’s insolvency, provided the obligor continues to be obliged to pay such receivables under its contract with the seller.

4.11      Future Receivables. Can the seller commit in an enforceable manner to sell receivables to the purchaser that come into existence after the date of the receivables purchase agreement (e.g., “future flow” securitisation)? If so, how must the sale of future receivables be structured to be valid and enforceable? Is there a distinction between future receivables that arise prior to versus after the seller’s insolvency?

A seller can commit in an enforceable manner to sell receivables to the purchaser that come into existence after the date of the receivables purchase agreement, so long as the formalities required to perfect the sale have been complied with.

As with question 4.10 above, notice of the sale must be given to the obligor at the future date when the seller enters into the contract with the obligor under which the obligor’s obligation to pay the receivable arises to ensure the purchaser’s priority to the same.

Receivables that arise after the seller’s insolvency is only legally assigned to the purchaser if notice has been given to the obligor of the sale and the receivables remain payable under the contract between the seller and the obligor notwithstanding the seller’s insolvency.  Until notice is given, the purchaser only has an equitable assignment of the receivables and is vulnerable to claims from intervening good faith purchasers or assignees of the same receivables for value without notice of the prior sale.

4.12      Related Security. Must any additional formalities be fulfilled in order for the related security to be transferred concurrently with the sale of receivables? If not all related security can be enforceably transferred, what methods are customarily adopted to provide the purchaser the benefits of such related security?

The formalities required in order to transfer related security concurrently with the sale of receivables depends on the nature of the security.  Most types of security can be transferred by way of assignment or novation of the rights of the seller to the purchaser.  Additional requirements may be in place for the assignment of certain types of security.  For example, if the security is a mortgage over a Singapore registered land or a ship, the transfer of the same requires registration with the Singapore Land Authority (in the case of land) and the Singapore Ship Registry (in the case of a ship).  If the obligor is a company registered in Singapore, particulars of the security and the secured party will need to be lodged with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore if they fall within the categories set out under Section 131(3) of the Companies Act 1967.

If there is any security that cannot be transferred in an enforceable manner, it is customary for the purchaser to require the seller to either hold the security on trust for the purchaser, or to concurrently discharge the security in favour of the seller and create an identical security in favour of the purchaser.  The former retains the priority of the purchaser to the security as from the time it was granted to the seller.  The latter, while potentially leading the purchaser to lose priority in respect of the security, will give the purchaser a direct recourse against the obligor without joining the seller.

4.13      Set-Off; Liability to Obligor. Assuming that a receivables contract does not contain a provision whereby the obligor waives its right to set-off against amounts it owes to the seller, do the obligor’s set-off rights terminate upon its receipt of notice of a sale? At any other time? If a receivables contract does not waive set-off but the obligor’s set-off rights are terminated due to notice or some other action, will either the seller or the purchaser be liable to the obligor for damages caused by such termination?

Assuming that a receivables contract does not contain a provision whereby the obligor waives its right to set off against amounts it owes to the seller, the obligor’s set-off rights terminate at the time the obligor receives notice of the sale and assignment of the receivables without prejudice to any pre-existing rights of set-off accrued prior to that time.

Notwithstanding the above, the seller may remain liable to the obligor for the damages resulting from the termination of the obligor’s set-off rights after notice of the sale and assignment has been given.

4.14      Profit Extraction. What methods are typically used in your jurisdiction to extract residual profits from the purchaser?

In Singapore, where the sale is outright, the benefit of any residual profits resulting from the sale of the receivables to the purchaser is retained by the purchaser.  Where the seller wishes to extract the residual profits from the purchaser, an agreement between the seller and the purchaser as to how and in what circumstances residual profit is paid back to the seller will need to be in place.  However, such an arrangement may lead to the Singapore courts questioning whether in substance the transaction is a genuine sale or recharacterising the sale as a loan.

5.1        Back-up Security. Is it customary in your jurisdiction to take a “back-up” security interest over the seller’s ownership interest in the receivables and the related security, in the event that an outright sale is deemed by a court (for whatever reason) not to have occurred and have been perfected (see question 4.9 above)?

While it is not uncommon for the sale of the receivables to be accompanied by the sale of all ancillary security granted by the obligor to secure its obligations under the receivables contract, it is not customary for “back-up” security interests over the seller’s ownership interest in the receivables to be taken in a transaction for the sale of receivables.  Consistent with a genuine sale, both the benefit and risk of non-payment of the receivables by the obligor is passed on to the purchaser.  To secure such risks by taking “back-up” security interests over the seller’s ownership interest in the receivables may be construed as being more akin to a loan with security.

5.2        Seller Security. If it is customary to take back-up security, what are the formalities for the seller granting a security interest in receivables and related security under the laws of your jurisdiction, and for such security interest to be perfected?

We refer to our response under question 5.1 in respect of any security interest granted by the seller over the receivables.

In respect of any other security to be transferred to the purchaser together with the sale, please refer to our response under question 4.12.

5.3        Purchaser Security. If the purchaser grants security over all of its assets (including purchased receivables) in favour of the providers of its funding, what formalities must the purchaser comply with in your jurisdiction to grant and perfect a security interest in purchased receivables governed by the laws of your jurisdiction and the related security?

If the purchaser grants security over all of its assets (including purchased receivables) in favour of the providers of its funding, the purchaser will need to take such appropriate steps to create and perfect the security created over each asset secured depending on the nature of the asset.

Insofar as receivables are concerned, any assignment of the receivables by way of security (as opposed to a sale) will need to be perfected by giving notice of the assignment to the obligor from whom the receivables are or will be due.

Other securities such as a mortgage over registered land must be registered with the Singapore Land Authority.  If the obligor is a company registered in Singapore, particulars of the security and the secured party will need to be lodged with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore if they fall within the categories set out under Section 131(3) of the Companies Act 1967, failing which the security will not be enforceable against the liquidators or other creditors of the obligor.

5.4        Recognition. If the purchaser grants a security interest in receivables governed by the laws of your jurisdiction, and that security interest is valid and perfected under the laws of the purchaser’s jurisdiction, will the security be treated as valid and perfected in your jurisdiction or must additional steps be taken in your jurisdiction?

Where the receivables are governed by Singapore law, the questions as to the substantive validity of the security interest or the enforceability of the security in Singapore will be determined under Singapore law.

However, questions of the purchaser’s capacity to grant such security over the receivables or the procedural and formal requirements for the perfection of the security will be determined under the law of the purchaser’s jurisdiction as the grantor of the security.

5.5        Additional Formalities. What additional or different requirements apply to security interests in or connected to insurance policies, promissory notes, mortgage loans, consumer loans or marketable debt securities?

Security interest in insurance policies, mortgage loans and consumer loans are usually granted by way of an assignment.

As with all other assignments, notification to the counterparty identifying the secured party and its interests is necessary in order to ensure that the secured party may seek recourse directly against the counterparty.  We refer to our response in question 5.3 in relation to the requirements for creation of a mortgage over registered land connected to a mortgage loan.

It is customary for an assignment of an insurance policy to require the insurer to provide an endorsement to the policy recognising the secured party’s interest and to name the secured party as a loss payee of the insurance policy.  Depending on the nature of the insurance, a secured party may also require certain undertakings to be provided in respect of non-cancellation/information to be provided by insurers, underwriters or brokers.

A security interest in promissory notes is usually created by way of a pledge and requires the delivery of the promissory notes to the secured party so that the right to receive payment under the promissory note from its issuer is preserved.

A security interest over marketable debt securities held with the Central Depository (Pte) Limited is created by way of a statutory law security by filing the requisite security forms.  Common law security may also be created over marketable debt securities if the grantor of the security and the lender each open a sub-account with the same depository agent.  The security grantor can then charge in favour of and assign to the lender all its rights, title and interest in its sub-account and all the marketable debt securities held in that sub-account.  Notice of the assignment should also be given to the depository agent in order to perfect the assignment.

If the grantor of the security is a company registered in Singapore, particulars of the security and the secured party will need to be lodged with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore if they fall within the categories set out under Section 131(3) of the Companies Act 1967 failing which the security will not be enforceable against the liquidators or other creditors of the grantor.

5.6        Trusts. Does your jurisdiction recognise trusts? If not, is there a mechanism whereby collections received by the seller in respect of sold receivables can be held or be deemed to be held separate and apart from the seller’s own assets (so that they are not part of the seller’s insolvency estate) until turned over to the purchaser?

Trusts are recognised under Singapore law.

5.7        Bank Accounts. Does your jurisdiction recognise escrow accounts? Can security be taken over a bank account located in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the typical method? Would courts in your jurisdiction recognise a foreign law grant of security taken over a bank account located in your jurisdiction?

Singapore law recognises escrow accounts.

Security can be taken over a bank account located in Singapore by way of a charge over the account.  This charge may require the consent of the bank with which the bank account is held in order for the same to have priority over the general bankers’ lien that the bank may have over the account and the funds standing therein.  In addition, a charge over a bank account and the funds standing therein would need to be registered under Section 131(3) of the Companies Act 1967 failing which the charge will not be enforceable against the liquidator or other creditors of the account holder.

5.8        Enforcement over Bank Accounts. If security over a bank account is possible and the secured party enforces that security, does the secured party control all cash flowing into the bank account from enforcement forward until the secured party is repaid in full, or are there limitations? If there are limitations, what are they?

This depends on the provisions of the security instrument.  Most such instruments typically provide that (upon enforcement) the secured party will be able to control all cash flowing into the bank account until the secured party is paid in full.

5.9        Use of Cash Bank Accounts. If security over a bank account is possible, can the owner of the account have access to the funds in the account prior to enforcement without affecting the security?

This depends on the provisions of the security instrument.  If permitted under the terms of the charge, the account holder can be given the right to deal with the funds in the bank account prior to the enforcement of the charge without affecting the security.  The same will be treated as a floating charge until such time when the security is enforced, and the charge is crystallised.

6.1        Stay of Action. If, after a sale of receivables that is otherwise perfected, the seller becomes subject to an insolvency proceeding, will your jurisdiction’s insolvency laws automatically prohibit the purchaser from collecting, transferring or otherwise exercising ownership rights over the purchased receivables (a “stay of action”)? If so, what generally is the length of that stay of action? Does the insolvency official have the ability to stay collection and enforcement actions until he determines that the sale is perfected? Would the answer be different if the purchaser is deemed to only be a secured party rather than the owner of the receivables?

If a sale of receivables is not perfected before the seller becomes subject to an insolvency proceeding, the purchaser would be able to continue to collect, transfer or otherwise exercise ownership rights over the purchased receivables as against the seller or its liquidator or creditors.

A sale that is not a genuine sale and that has been recharacterised as a loan with security by way of the sale of receivables will not be enforceable against the liquidator and other creditors of the seller, unless lodgement of the security is made in accordance with Section 131 of the Companies Act 1967.

In the case of a judicial management application made in respect of a Singapore company, upon the making of such an application, no steps may be taken to enforce any charge or security or to repossess any goods or to commence any proceedings, execution or other legal process against the company or its property, except with leave of court.  When a judicial management order is made, any receiver shall vacate office and: (i) no execution or other legal process shall be commenced against them; and (ii) no steps taken to enforce security over or to repossess the company or its property, except with the consent of the judicial manager or with leave of court.

In the case of a winding-up application having been commenced, the company or any creditor or contributory may apply to court at any time before a winding-up order is made for a stay of proceedings pending against the company.  Any disposition of the property of the company (including things in action) made after the commencement of the winding-up shall (unless the court otherwise orders) be void, and any attachment, sequestration, distress or execution shall be void.  Upon the winding-up application being granted, no proceedings may be commenced or continued against the company without leave of court.

6.2        Insolvency Official’s Powers. If there is no stay of action, under what circumstances, if any, does the insolvency official have the power to prohibit the purchaser’s exercise of its ownership rights over the receivables (by means of injunction, stay order or other action)?

The insolvency official may be able to apply to the Singapore court for an injunction prohibiting the purchaser to exercise its ownership rights over the receivables, where it can be shown that the sale was not a genuine sale and is liable to be set aside as a transaction that is at an undervalue or that gives rise to an unfair preference in accordance with Sections 361 and 362 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (as applied to a company pursuant to Section 224 or 225 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018).

The sale may be considered to be a transaction at an undervalue where:

• the seller makes a gift to that purchaser or otherwise enters into a transaction with the purchaser on terms that provide for the seller to receive no consideration;
• the seller enters into a transaction with the purchaser in consideration of marriage; or
• the seller enters into a transaction with the purchaser for a consideration received, in money or money’s worth, which is significantly less than the value, in money or money’s worth, of the consideration provided by the purchaser, having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the transaction.

On the other hand, the sale may be deemed to give rise to an undue preference where:

• the purchaser is one of the seller’s creditors or a surety or guarantor for any of the seller’s debts or other liabilities;
• the seller does anything or suffers anything to be done that (in either case) has the effect of putting the purchaser in a position which, in the event of the seller’s insolvency, will be better than the position he would have been in if that thing had not been done; and
• the seller has given an unfair preference with a desire to produce in relation to the purchaser the effect referred to above.  Such intention is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, where the purchaser is an associate of the seller.

6.3        Suspect Period (Clawback). Under what facts or circumstances could the insolvency official rescind or reverse transactions that took place during a “suspect” or “preference” period before the commencement of the seller’s insolvency proceedings? What are the lengths of the “suspect” or “preference” periods in your jurisdiction for (a) transactions between unrelated parties, and (b) transactions between related parties? If the purchaser is majority-owned or controlled by the seller or an affiliate of the seller, does that render sales by the seller to the purchaser “related party transactions” for purposes of determining the length of the suspect period? If a parent company of the seller guarantee’s the performance by the seller of its obligations under contracts with the purchaser, does that render sales by the seller to the purchaser “related party transactions” for purposes of determining the length of the suspect period?

With reference to our response under question 6.2 above, the clawback period is as set out in Section 226 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.  In summary, the lengths of the suspect periods are as follows:

• three years from the date of commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of any transactions at an undervalue;
• one year from the date of commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of any undue preference granted to a creditor who is not an associate to the insolvent party; and
• two years from the date of commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of any undue preference granted to a creditor who is an associate to the insolvent party.

The definition of what constitutes an “associate” of the insolvent party can be found under Section 217 (for bankrupt individuals) and 364 (for companies) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, which, for companies, generally includes its directors and controllers, whether they are legal shareholders or otherwise.

6.4        Substantive Consolidation. Under what facts or circumstances, if any, could the insolvency official consolidate the assets and liabilities of the purchaser with those of the seller or its affiliates in the insolvency proceeding? If the purchaser is owned by the seller or by an affiliate of the seller, does that affect the consolidation analysis?

Under Singapore law, it is not common for assets and liabilities of separate legal entities to be consolidated even if there exists a parent-subsidiary relationship between the entities.  As such, if the seller, as the shareholder of the purchaser, becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, the purchaser subsidiary can continue to exist without being affected.

The Singapore courts will only be willing to pierce the corporate veil and look to the assets of other affiliated companies of an insolvent company in limited circumstances such as fraud.

6.5        Effect of Insolvency on Receivables Sales. If insolvency proceedings are commenced against the seller in your jurisdiction, what effect do those proceedings have on (a) sales of receivables that would otherwise occur after the commencement of such proceedings, or (b) on sales of receivables that only come into existence after the commencement of such proceedings?

With reference to our response under questions 4.10 and 4.11, the purchaser will still be entitled to receivables that would otherwise occur after the commencement of insolvency proceedings against the seller or that only come into existence after the commencement of such proceedings provided the obligor remains bound under the receivables contract to pay those receivables.

6.6        Effect of Limited Recourse Provisions. If a debtor’s contract contains a limited recourse provision (see question 7.4 below), can the debtor nevertheless be declared insolvent on the grounds that it cannot pay its debts as they become due?

Where the debtor’s contract contains a limited recourse provision, it is still possible for the debtor to be declared insolvent on the grounds that it cannot pay its debts as they become due given that this is essentially a question of fact.

7.1        Securitisation Law. Is there a special securitisation law (and/or special provisions in other laws) in your jurisdiction establishing a legal framework for securitisation transactions? If so, what are the basics? Is there a regulatory authority responsible for regulating securitisation transactions in your jurisdiction? Does your jurisdiction define what type of transaction constitutes a securitisation?

There is no statute in Singapore dealing with securitisation law.  However, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), as the financial regulator, occasionally issues notices, circulars and guidelines that provide the framework for securitisation transactions.

MAS Notice No. 628 deals with securitisation and sets out under Sections 3, 4 and the Annexes the mandatory requirements applicable to banks and under Section 5 the non-mandatory guidelines on the responsibilities of banks in respect of a securitisation.  MAS Notice No. 832 sets out similar requirements applicable to finance companies.

Income derived by an approved securitisation company resident in Singapore from asset securitisation transactions are exempt from income tax provided they meet the conditions under Section 13P of the Income Tax Act 1947.  The regulations dealing with this exemption are set out under the Income Tax (Exemption of Income of Approved Securitisation Company) Regulations 2008.

MAS Notice No. 637 defines securitisation to mean any transaction or scheme involving the tranching of credit risk associated with an exposure or a pool of exposures, and which has the following characteristics:

• payments in the transaction or scheme depend on the performance of the exposure or pool of exposures;
• the subordination of tranches determines the distribution of losses during the ongoing life of the transaction or scheme; and
• junior tranches can absorb losses without interrupting contractual payments to more senior tranches.

7.2        Securitisation Entities. Does your jurisdiction have laws specifically providing for establishment of special purpose entities for securitisation? If so, what does the law provide as to: (a) requirements for establishment and management of such an entity; (b) legal attributes and benefits of the entity; and (c) any specific requirements as to the status of directors or shareholders?

MAS Notice No. 628 referred to in question 7.1 deals with the establishment by banks of special purpose entities (SPE) to undertake asset securitisation transactions and the requirements imposed on the same.

Section 3.1 of the Notice requires that any bank acting as the programme sponsor, manager or an originator of a securitisation transaction comply with the separation requirements set out in Annex A and the disclosure requirements set out in Annex B.

Annex A provides that any bank acting as the programme sponsor, manager or an originator of a securitisation transaction shall not, in respect of the SPE used in securitisation:

• in the case where the SPE is a corporation, own any share capital in the SPE, including ordinary or preference shares, or in the case where the SPE is a trust, own any share capital in the trustee or be a beneficiary of the SPE;
• name the SPE in a manner as to imply any connection with the bank;
• the board is made up of at least three members the majority of whom are independent directors; and
• the officer representing the bank does not have veto powers;
• directly or indirectly control the SPE; or
• provide implicit support or bear any of the recurring expenses of the securitisation.

Notwithstanding the above, a bank may hold preference shares issued pursuant to a securitisation provided:

• the bank does not directly or indirectly control the SPE or the underlying exposures; and
• MAS is satisfied that the preference shares have debt-like characteristics.

All transactions between the bank and the SPE are to be conducted at arm’s length and on market terms and conditions.

7.3        Location and form of Securitisation Entities. Is it typical to establish the special purpose entity in your jurisdiction or offshore? If in your jurisdiction, what are the advantages to locating the special purpose entity in your jurisdiction? If offshore, where are special purpose entities typically located for securitisations in your jurisdiction? What are the forms that the special purpose entity would normally take in your jurisdiction and how would such entity usually be owned?

There is no customary practice of establishing SPEs in a particular jurisdiction – this will depend on the individual facts of the transaction.

A key advantage of locating the SPE in Singapore would be the ease of incorporation and doing business here:

• Singapore’s corporate tax rate is presently 17%, which is significantly lower than jurisdictions such as Philippines (25%), Indonesia (22%), Australia (25–30%) and on par with jurisdictions like Taiwan (20%) and Hong Kong (16.5%).  The single-tier taxation system and the absence of a tax on dividends and capital gains are also pull-factors;
• a company can be incorporated in as little as one to three days due to Singapore’s lack of red tape and efficiency, and a minimum paid-up capital requirement of just S$1.00l and
• other considerations like our high connectivity and relative political and social stability also facilitate the conduct of business locally.

That said, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has imposed several requirements for banks in Singapore that wish to establish special purpose entities (SPEs) to undertake asset securitisation transactions.  The separation and disclosure requirements set out in MAS Notice No. 628 have been discussed in question 7.1 above, and MAS Notice No. 648 (dealing with covered bonds – debt securities issued by a bank or through an SPE that are collateralised against a cover pool of the bank’s assets) provides for an encumbrance limit of 10%, which means that the percentage of the bank’s assets that can be used in the cover pool is capped at 10%.  This encumbrance limit is an increase from the previous limit of 4%, allowing banks to issue a higher volume of covered bonds relative to their total assets than in previous cases.  If the bank should use an SPE to issue covered bonds or to hold the cover pool, the bank and the SPE shall be treated as a single entity for the purposes of the encumbrance limit.

7.4        Limited-Recourse Clause. Will a court in your jurisdiction give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (even if that agreement’s governing law is the law of another country) limiting the recourse of parties to that agreement to the available assets of the relevant debtor, and providing that to the extent of any shortfall the debt of the relevant debtor is extinguished?

The Singapore courts generally recognise and give weight to the freedom of parties to a contract.  A Singapore court is likely to give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (whether or not governed by Singapore law) limiting the recourse of parties to that agreement to the available assets of the relevant debtor, and providing that to the extent of any shortfall the debt of the relevant debtor is extinguished (so long as such clauses are valid, binding and enforceable under the governing law of the agreement).

7.5        Non-Petition Clause. Will a court in your jurisdiction give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (even if that agreement’s governing law is the law of another country) prohibiting the parties from: (a) taking legal action against the purchaser or another person; or (b) commencing an insolvency proceeding against the purchaser or another person?

The Singapore courts generally recognise and give great weight to the freedom of parties to a contract.  That being said, the position under Singapore law is not entirely clear as to whether a contractual provision in an agreement (whether or not governed by Singapore law) prohibits the parties from: (a) taking legal action against the purchaser or another person; or (b) commencing an insolvency proceeding against the purchaser or another person.

Provided a court does not find such a provision objectionable on the grounds that it is contrary to public policy or is intended to evade the application of any law that would have otherwise been mandatorily applicable to the transaction, the Singapore courts will likely give effect to the clause (so long as such clauses are valid, binding and enforceable under the governing law of the agreement).

7.6        Priority of Payments “Waterfall”. Will a court in your jurisdiction give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (even if that agreement’s governing law is the law of another country) distributing payments to parties in a certain order specified in the contract?

A Singapore court is likely to give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (whether or not governed by Singapore law) distributing payments to parties in a certain order specified in the contract, so long as such clauses are valid, binding and enforceable under the governing law of the agreement, but subject to any statutory priorities that may arise in the event of the insolvency of the debtor under the provisions of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.

7.7        Independent Director. Will a court in your jurisdiction give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (even if that agreement’s governing law is the law of another country) or a provision in a party’s organisational documents prohibiting the directors from taking specified actions (including commencing an insolvency proceeding) without the affirmative vote of an independent director?

A Singapore court is generally likely to give effect to a contractual provision in an agreement (whether or not governed by Singapore law) or a provision in a party’s organisational documents prohibiting the directors from taking specified actions (including commencing an insolvency proceeding) without the affirmative vote of an independent director so long as such restriction is valid, binding and enforceable under the governing law of the agreement and the law of the place of incorporation of the organisation.

That being said, the Companies Act 1967 confers on directors of a Singapore company certain statutory rights, powers and duties that cannot be excluded by way of contract and notwithstanding the constitution of the company, and a director has fiduciary duties to the company under common law.  This is to ensure the proper regulation of the company.  A restriction or limitation that is construed as an impermissible fetter on a director’s discretion wholesale may also not be recognised.

7.8        Location of Purchaser. Is it typical to establish the purchaser in your jurisdiction or offshore? If in your jurisdiction, what are the advantages to locating the purchaser in your jurisdiction? If offshore, where are purchasers typically located for securitisations in your jurisdiction?

There is no customary practice to establish a purchaser in Singapore or elsewhere.  Whether this should be done will ultimately depend on the individual facts of the transaction including where the seller and obligor are located, where the receivables are payable and whether there are any income or other tax implications.

As set out in question 7.1, Singapore law provide income tax exemptions for income derived by an approved securitisation company resident in Singapore from asset securitisation transactions.  Depending on the location of the obligor and where the receivables are to be paid, the purchaser may also wish to consider whether the receivables may be subject to withholding tax or other value added or similar tax in the jurisdiction from which the receivables are to be paid.

8.1        Required Authorisations, etc. Assuming that the purchaser does no other business in your jurisdiction, will its purchase and ownership or its collection and enforcement of receivables result in its being required to qualify to do business or to obtain any licence or its being subject to regulation as a financial institution in your jurisdiction? Does the answer to the preceding question change if the purchaser does business with more than one seller in your jurisdiction?

If a purchaser is a foreign company, it will not be regarded as carrying on business in Singapore simply because it:

• secures or collects any of its debts or enforces its rights in regard to any securities relating to such debts; or
• conducts an isolated transaction that is completed within a period of 31 days, but not being one of a number of similar transactions repeated from time to time.

The above is set out in Section 366 of the Companies Act 1967.  As such, if the purchaser does no other business in Singapore, it is unlikely to be regarded as carrying on business in Singapore simply by reason of its purchase and ownership or its collection and enforcement of receivables.

If the purchaser does business with more than one seller in Singapore, there is a higher likelihood of the purchaser being found to be “carrying on business” in Singapore.  The factors that will be considered include:

• whether the purchaser has established a place of business in Singapore;
• whether the purchaser has employed any employee or agent in connection with the business;
• whether the purchaser has raised any loans or finance;
• whether the purchaser has undertaken any collection of information or soliciting of business; and
• trading within Singapore.

8.2        Servicing. Does the seller require any licences, etc., in order to continue to enforce and collect receivables following their sale to the purchaser, including to appear before a court? Does a third-party replacement servicer require any licences, etc., in order to enforce and collect sold receivables?

The seller does not require any licence or permit per se to enforce and collect receivables.  However, under Section 33 of the Legal Profession Act 1966, there are certain restrictions against an unqualified person acting in the capacity of an advocate and solicitor in proceedings (whether on its own behalf or as an agent for others) – should the seller wish to sue out any writ, summons or process, or commence, continue or defend legal proceedings in the Singapore courts, the engagement of an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore may be required.  In addition, a seller cannot, for any fee, gain or reward, directly or indirectly draw or prepare any document or instrument relating to any movable property (including receivables) or immovable property or to any legal proceeding.  A seller also cannot, on behalf of a claimant, write, publish or send a letter or notice threatening legal proceedings other than a letter of notice that the matter will be handed to a solicitor for legal proceedings.

8.3        Data Protection. Does your jurisdiction have laws restricting the use or dissemination of data about or provided by obligors? If so, do these laws apply only to consumer obligors or also to enterprises?

The Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations.  “Personal data” refers to data, whether true or not, about an individual who can be identified from that data or from that data and other information to which the organisation has or is likely to have access.  The PDPA applies to all companies and entities, but generally does not apply to individuals acting in a personal or domestic basis, or any public agency.  In addition, sensitive or confidential information and trade secrets may be contractually protected or secured by way of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements.

The Banking Act 1970 provides for confidentiality of information in relation to the customer information of a bank under the Banking Act 1970.  “Customer information”, in relation to a bank, means: (a) any information relating to, or any particulars of, an account of a customer of the bank, whether the account is in respect of a loan, investment or any other type of transaction, but does not include any information that is not referable to any named customer or group of named customers; or (b) deposit information.

Customer information must not, in any way, be disclosed by a bank in Singapore, or any of its officers, to any other person, except as expressly provided in the Banking Act 1970.  A bank in Singapore or any of its officers may, for such purposes as may be specified in the first column of the Third Schedule, disclose customer information to such persons or class of persons as may be specified in the second column of that Schedule, and in compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the third column of that Schedule.

Certain information is publicly available for a fee and these include information about companies such as the particulars of its officers and shareholders, the company’s registered address and share capital.

8.4        Consumer Protection. If the obligors are consumers, will the purchaser (including a bank acting as purchaser) be required to comply with any consumer protection law of your jurisdiction? Briefly, what is required?

There are two main statutes relating to consumer protection in Singapore that the purchaser will be required to comply with.  The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 imposes limits on the extent to which civil liability for breach of contract, or for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of contract terms and otherwise.  The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 protects consumers against unfair practices and gives consumers additional rights in respect of goods that do not conform to contract.  Under these statutes, the purchaser shall not, among other things:

• by reference to its standard terms of business exclude its own liability for breaches of terms;
• take advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable; and
• do or say anything, or omit to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled.

If the bank acts as purchaser, there may be additional requirements pertaining to transactions with customers that the bank must comply with under the Banking Act 1970 and the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s notices, guidelines and codes of conduct.

8.5        Currency Restrictions. Does your jurisdiction have laws restricting the exchange of your jurisdiction’s currency for other currencies or the making of payments in your jurisdiction’s currency to persons outside the country?

Singapore does not currently impose any currency restrictions and has not imposed any currency restrictions since 1 June 1978, when the Monetary Authority of Singapore suspended all provisions and obligations imposed under the various sections of the Exchange Control Act 1953 pertaining to formalities or approvals required for all forms of payment or capital transfers.

8.6        Risk Retention. Does your jurisdiction have laws or regulations relating to “risk retention”? How are securitisation transactions in your jurisdiction usually structured to satisfy those risk retention requirements?

Regulations relating to risk retention and management in securitisation transactions are set out in Part VII Division 6 of Notice 637 issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

There is no fixed way in which securitisation transactions are to be structured.  Instead, Reporting Banks (as defined in Notice 637) are to determine the capital treatment of a securitisation on the basis of its economic substance rather than its legal form in order to determine their regulatory obligations on exposures.

8.7        Regulatory Developments. Have there been any regulatory developments in your jurisdiction which are likely to have a material impact on securitisation transactions in your jurisdiction?

Notice 637 issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore on Risk-Based Capital Adequacy Requirements for Banks incorporated in Singapore was amended in July 2022.

In particular, the notable amendments made to Notice 637 include:

• implementing the revised Pillar 3 disclosure requirements for interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision;
• implementing a -100bps interest rate floor on the post-shock interest rates under the standardised interest rate shock scenarios set out in Annex 10C of MAS Notice 637; and
• providing additional clarity on the application of interest rate floors, interest rate caps, and pass-through rates when computing IRRBB under the standardised interest rate shock scenarios.

To elaborate, Section 1 of Annex 10D sets out the selection process for a Reporting Bank’s Internal Interest Rate Shock and Stress Scenarios.  A Reporting Bank should have in place a selection process for its internal interest rate shock and stress scenarios by doing, amongst others, the following:

• having in place a stress-testing framework for IRRBB that ensures that the opinions of the various experts on IRRBB in the Reporting Bank are taken into account.  The identification of relevant shock and stress scenarios for IRRBB, the application of sound modelling approaches and the appropriate use of the stress-testing results require the collaboration of different experts (e.g. traders, the treasury department, the finance department, the ALCO, the risk management and risk control departments and the Reporting Bank’s economists) within the Reporting Bank;
• determining, by currency, a range of potential interest rate movements against which the Reporting Bank will measure its IRRBB exposures, and ensuring that risk is measured under a reasonable range of potential interest rate scenarios, including some containing severe stress elements.  In developing the scenarios, the Reporting Bank should consider a variety of factors, such as the shape and level of the current term structure of interest rates and the historical and implied volatility of interest rates.  In low interest rate environments, the Reporting Bank should also consider negative interest rate scenarios and the possibility of asymmetrical effects of negative interest rates on its assets and liabilities;
• considering the nature and sources of its IRRBB exposures, the time it would need to take action to reduce or unwind unfavourable IRRBB exposures, and its capability and willingness to withstand accounting losses in order to reposition its risk profile.  The Reporting Bank should select scenarios that provide meaningful estimates of risk and include a range of shocks that is sufficiently wide to allow the Board or its delegates, as the case may be, to understand the risks inherent in the Reporting Bank’s products and activities; and
• changes in portfolio composition due to factors under the control of the Reporting Bank (for example, its acquisition and production plans), as well as external factors (for example, changing competitive, legal or tax environments);
• the introduction of new products where only limited historical data are available; and
• new market information and new emerging risks that are not necessarily covered by historical stress episodes.

Meanwhile, Section 2 of Annex 10D sets out the IRRBB Measurement System and Models.  Furthermore, Section 3 of Annex 10D stipulates the Internal Assessment of Capital Adequacy of IRRBB.

9.1        Withholding Taxes. Will any part of payments on receivables by the obligors to the seller or the purchaser be subject to withholding taxes in your jurisdiction? Does the answer depend on the nature of the receivables, whether they bear interest, their term to maturity, or where the seller or the purchaser is located? In the case of a sale of trade receivables at a discount, is there a risk that the discount will be recharacterised in whole or in part as interest? In the case of a sale of trade receivables where a portion of the purchase price is payable upon collection of the receivable, is there a risk that the deferred purchase price will be recharacterised in whole or in part as interest? If withholding taxes might apply, what are the typical methods for eliminating or reducing withholding taxes?

Withholding tax is applicable in Singapore in respect of certain types of payments (including interest on overdue trade accounts and interest on credit terms) paid from a resident to a non-resident.  The prevailing rate of withholding tax on interest payments is 15%.  Accordingly, while the payment of receivables arising from the sale of goods and services itself is not subject to withholding tax, interest charged on the same will be.

In the event that the sale of trade receivables is at an artificial discount, or part of the purchase price is artificially payable upon collection of the receivable, there is a risk that such discount or deferred purchase price will be recharacterised in whole or in part as interest, which will be wholly subject to withholding tax.

9.2        Seller Tax Accounting. Does your jurisdiction require that a specific accounting policy is adopted for tax purposes by the seller or purchaser in the context of a securitisation?

There is no requirement under Singapore law for any specific accounting policy to be adopted for tax purposes by the seller or the purchaser in the context of a securitisation.

9.3        Stamp Duty, etc. Does your jurisdiction impose stamp duty or other transfer or documentary taxes on sales of receivables?

Singapore law does not impose any stamp duty or other documentary taxes on the sale of receivables.

9.4        Value Added Taxes. Does your jurisdiction impose value added tax, sales tax or other similar taxes on sales of goods or services, on sales of receivables or on fees for collection agent services?

In respect of the sale of goods and services, a Goods and Services Tax (GST) is akin to a value-added tax or sales tax in other jurisdictions and is imposed subject to the provisions and exemptions under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 (the “ GST Act ”).  The rate of GST applicable depends on the nature of the goods and services supplied.  Certain supplies (including the supply of goods and services in relation to ships and aircrafts) are zero-rated.  For most other supplies (including the provision of services as a collection agent in Singapore), the standard GST rate of 8% is applicable.

A sale of receivables is exempt from the GST under the Fourth Schedule of the GST Act.

9.5        Purchaser Liability. If the seller is required to pay value-added tax, stamp duty or other taxes upon the sale of receivables (or on the sale of goods or services that give rise to the receivables) and the seller does not pay, then will the taxing authority be able to make claims for the unpaid tax against the purchaser or against the sold receivables or collections?

We refer to our response under question 9.4 above in relation to the sale of receivables; no GST, stamp duty or other transfer taxes are payable on the sale of receivables.

If GST is payable on the sale of goods and services under which the receivable is paid and the seller fails to file its GST returns or pay the GST due on the same within one month after the end of the accounting period of the GST return, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) may, among other things, impose a late submission and a late payment penalty on the seller.  IRAS may also appoint a party (in respect of whom any monies or debt is payable to a seller) as a tax agent of IRAS and direct that such party pay over to IRAS such sums as may be directed amounting to tax due and unpaid to IRAS from the seller.

9.6        Doing Business. Assuming that the purchaser conducts no other business in your jurisdiction, would the purchaser’s purchase of the receivables, its appointment of the seller as its servicer and collection agent, or its enforcement of the receivables against the obligors, make it liable to tax in your jurisdiction?

The purchaser may be liable to tax in Singapore if it purchases receivables from obligors in Singapore, or if it appoints the seller as its servicer and collection agent for obligors in Singapore, or if it enforces the receivables against obligors in Singapore.

9.7        Taxable Income. If a purchaser located in your jurisdiction receives debt relief as the result of a limited recourse clause (see question 7.4 above), is that debt relief liable to tax in your jurisdiction?

Bad debt relief is available if the supplier has paid GST on the supply of goods, in respect of which the consideration thereof is later written off in whole or in part.  In order to claim for relief, a period of 12 months starting from the date of supply must have elapsed or the debtor has become insolvent during the 12-month period.  The supplier must also have taken reasonable steps to recover the debts and the value of the supply must be equal to or less than its open market value.  In the case of goods, the ownership of the goods must have been transferred to the customer.

To download this chapter FREE Register or log in here

Contributors

Oon Thian Seng Oon & Bazul LLP

Angeline Woo Mei Yi Oon & Bazul LLP

Lim Wei-Qi Oon & Bazul LLP

Oon & Bazul LLP

Related Events View all

• 4th Jun 2024 Global ABS 2024

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Conventus Law

More results...

Singapore – Receivable Financing With A Prohibition Against Assignment – A Possibility?

February 23, 2018 by Conventus Law

23 February, 2018

First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC v BP Oil International Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 14

The English Court of Appeal recently considered the effect of a contractual prohibition against assignment of receivable in receivable financing. The decision affirms that such a prohibition is effective to prevent any attempted assignments. However, it does not restrict other alternative methods of transferring the economic benefit of the contract, such as declarations of trust, subrogation, sub-participation and payments to the assignee after receipt by the assignor.

The case also cautions lenders on the need to tighten widely worded representations and warranties on the ability of the assignor to assign receivable in receivable financing.

Facts of First Abu Dhabi Bank

BP Oil International Limited (“BPOI”) and Société Anonyme Marocaine de L’Industrie de Raffinage (“SAMIR”) entered into an agreement for the delivery of crude oil (“the SAMIR Agreement”). The SAMIR Agreement incorporated the following clause (“the section 34 clause”):

“Neither of the parties to the Agreement shall without the previous consent in writing of the other party (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) assign the Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder. In the event of an assignment in accordance with the terms of this Section, the assignor shall nevertheless remain responsible for the proper performance of the Agreement. Any assignment not made in accordance with the terms of this Section shall be void.”

BPOI subsequently entered into a receivables financing arrangement with First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC (“FADB”), under which BPOI transferred to FADB the credit risk of SAMIR failing to make payment under the SAMIR Agreement. FADB would pay to BPOI 95% of the value of the receivable under the SAMIR Agreement in advance of the receivable being due; in exchange, BPOI would assign 95% of the value of the receivable to FADB and pay it a fee. It was further provided in the agreements between BPOI and FADB that if such assignment was not able to take place:

(a)  FADB would be subrogated to BPOI’s rights against SAMIR;

(b)  BPOI would take legal proceedings against SAMIR for amounts unpaid by SAMIR;

(c)  BPOI would hold on trust for FADB the proceeds of 95% of the receivable; and

(d)  FADB would be entitled to a funded sub-participation in the rights to receive payment in respect of 95% of the receivable.

BPOI also represented and warranted to FADB that:

“BPOI is not prohibited by any security, loan or other agreement, to which it is a party, from disposing of the Receivable evidenced by the Invoice as contemplated herein and such sale does not conflict with any agreement binding on [BPOI]”.

SAMIR’s consent was not obtained in relation to the assignment of the receivable. Subsequently, after SAMIR took steps to file for insolvency before payment in respect of the receivable were made, FADB commenced proceedings against BPOI, claiming a breach of the representation and warranty. 

The court had to determine three issues:

(a)  What, on its true construction, was BPOI contractually prohibited from doing under the section 34 clause?

(b)  What, as a matter of law, was the effect of such a restriction on BPOI’s ability to dispose of the receivable?

(c)  As a matter of construction, was BPOI in breach of the representation and warranty?

On the first issue, the Court held that the section 34 clause imposed a contractual obligation on BPOI not to assign its future or existing rights under the SAMIR Agreement without SAMIR’s prior consent. This includes the attempted assignment of 95% of the receivable by BPOI to FADB. The prohibition on assignment did not, however, impose any contractual restriction on BPOI from:

(a)  Paying to FADB all payments received from SAMIR in connection with the receivable;

(b)  Where an assignment was unable to take place, subrogating FADB to its rights against SAMIR;

(c)  Holding the proceeds of the receivable on trust for FADB; and

(d)  Granting FADB a funded sub-participation in respect of the rights to receive payment of the receivable.

Payment by the assignor to assignee after receipt of sums due is not prohibited, since these are not “rights under” the underlying contract. The Court affirmed its 2007 decision in Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia that prohibitions on assignment do not preclude declarations of trust by the assignor in favour of the assignee. Further, it was common ground between the parties that clauses prohibiting assignment also do not prevent the creation of rights of subrogation (any claim brought pursuant to the subrogation right must be brought by and in the name of BPOI) or sub-participation (this would result in a debtor-creditor relationship between BPOI and FADB without giving FADB an interest in the underlying debt).

On the second issue, the Court admitted that the House of Lords’ decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd was binding on it. In that case, it was held that contractual prohibitions on assignment are effective to prevent attempted assignments of contractual rights in breach of the prohibition. Nonetheless, the Court considered at great length Professor Goode’s proposition that “a no-assignment clause is valid only so far as it operates as a matter of contract, conditioning the duty to perform, not as a restraint on alienation”, and that “[i]f … it purports to render a transfer void … it invades the field of property law and is of no effect, both on the ground of repugnancy and on the ground of public policy”. While clearly impressed with Professor Goode’s analysis, the Court’s remarks are ultimately obiter dicta since it observed that BPOI did not seek to argue this issue before it. The Court thus proceeded on the assumption that the section 34 clause was capable of rendering ineffective any purported equitable assignment of the receivable without SAMIR’s consent.

In relation to the third issue, the Court held that BPOI was not in breach of the representation and warranty. It observed that the parties expressly contemplated the possibility of a contractual restriction against assignment, and thus provided for alternative means of transferring the economic benefit of the receivable to FDAB. Moreover, the primary means of transferring such economic benefit was for BPOI to make immediate payment of amounts received from SAMIR to FDAB, and to impose a trust over such amounts received in BPOI’s hands. Only to the extent that such sums were not received or paid over to FDAB did the assignment take effect. Against this background, the Court considered that on true construction of the representation and warranty, the words “disposing” or “sale” did not refer exclusively to an assignment. Hence, even accepting that the section 34 clause was effective to prohibit assignment of the receivable, it did not prohibit other means of transferring the economic benefit of the receivable. There was accordingly no breach of the representation and warranty. 

Implications for Banks

1. Clauses prohibiting assignment of debts do not prohibit other ways of transferring economic benefit of underlying contract

The case demonstrates that despite the existence of a clause in the underlying contract prohibiting assignment of receivables thereunder, there are other valid mechanisms by which banks may acquire the economic benefit of the contract may be transferred. Clauses prohibiting assignment do not, as a matter of construction, preclude payment of amounts received by the assignor to the assignee, declarations of trust, and the giving of rights of subrogation and sub-participation. Assignees would do well to strengthen their position by including such other means of transferring the benefit of the underlying contract in their agreements.

2. A potential relook at Linden Gardens?

Despite being bound by the House of Lords’ decision in Linden Gardens, and the issue not being argued before it, the English Court of Appeal referred extensively to Professor Goode’s analysis on the effect of contractual prohibitions on the assignment. This case has been roundly criticised for several years, and it was thus perhaps unsurprising that the English Court of Appeal took this opportunity to consider the “strong arguments in favour of Professor Goode’s proposition” that “it is not competent for the debtor to exclude by contract the proprietary effects of an assignment as between assignor and assignee, or the creation of a trust as between trustee and beneficiary; and that ‘all he can do is to insist that he will not recognise the title of the beneficiary or the ability of the beneficiary to bring proceedings in his own right.’” Notably, Professor Goode has suggested that Linden Gardens concerned the issue of whether the assignment was effective against the debtor, rather than as between the assignor and assignee. Thus, while the Court was bound by Linden Gardens, it could – if it so wished – adopted Professor Goode’s characterisation of that decision in order to distinguish it from the present facts, had the issue been live before it. For now, at least, Linden Gardens remains authority from the apex court in UK, and is binding in the UK and persuasive in Singapore. But this decision now provides fresh ammunition to a future litigant wishing to challenge the correctness of Linden Gardens.

This decision, as noted above, already lends considerable support to lenders in the context of receivables financing by permitting various methods of acquiring the economic benefit of an underlying contract despite a contractual prohibition on assignment of the receivable. A potential reversal of Linden Gardens would go even further by holding that an equitable assignment is effective to transfer the receivable in respect of an underlying contract in the face of a contractual prohibition on assignment.

3. Representations and warranties should be tightened to expressly cover “assignment”

A representation and warranty employing general language that the assignor is not prohibited from “disposing” of, or effecting a “sale” of, the receivable may not be breached by the existence of a prohibition on assignment if other means of transferring the economic benefit of the contract were envisaged by the parties. Lenders will benefit from tighter drafting that expressly covers “assignment” of the receivable, in order to succeed in a claim against the assignor for breach of representation and/or warranty. 

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

Malaysia – A Brief Overview Of Labuan Business Essentials.

Electrifying The Road Ahead: A Comprehensive Guide To EV Charging Guidelines In Malaysia.

- richard wee - managing partner, richard wee chambers.

Cracking The Code: Legal Hurdles For Integrating AI In Singapore.

- jonathan kok - partner, withersworldwide.com.

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

Singaporean firm whose ship took down the Baltimore bridge just cited an 1851 maritime law to cap liability at $44 million

The owner and manager of a cargo ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge before the span  collapsed last week  filed a court petition Monday seeking to limit their legal liability for the deadly disaster.

The companies’ “limitation of liability” petition is a routine but important procedure for cases litigated under U.S. maritime law. A federal court in Maryland ultimately decides who is responsible—and how much they owe—for what could become one of the costliest catastrophes of its kind.

Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. owns the Dali, the vessel that lost power before it slammed into the bridge early last Tuesday. Synergy Marine Pte Ltd., also based in Singapore, is the ship’s manager.

Their  joint filing  seeks to cap the companies’ liability at roughly $43.6 million. It estimates that the vessel itself is valued at up to $90 million and was owed over $1.1 million in income from freight. The estimate also deducts two major expenses: at least $28 million in repair costs and at least $19.5 million in salvage costs.

The companies filed under a pre-Civil War provision of an 1851 maritime law that allows them to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty. It’s a mechanism that has been employed as a defense in many of the most notable maritime disasters, said James Mercante, a New York City-based attorney with over 30 years of experience in maritime law.

“This is the first step in the process,” Mercante said. “Now all claims must be filed in this proceeding.”

Cases like this typically take years to completely resolve, said Martin Davies, director of Tulane University Law School’s Maritime Law Center.

“Although it’s a humongous case with a very unusual set of circumstances, I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated in legal terms,” he said. “All aspects of the law are very clear here, so I think the thing that will take the time here is the facts. What exactly went wrong? What could have been done?”

A report from credit rating agency Morningstar DBRS predicts the bridge collapse could become the most expensive marine insured loss in history, surpassing the record of about $1.5 billion held by the 2012  shipwreck of the Costa Concordia  cruise ship off Italy. Morningstar DBRS estimates total insured losses for the Baltimore disaster could be $2 billion to $4 billion.

Eight people were working on the highway bridge—a 1.6-mile (2.6-kilometer) span over the Patapsco River—when it collapsed. Two were rescued. The bodies of two more were recovered. Four remain missing and are presumed dead.

The wreckage closed the Port of Baltimore, a major shipping port, potentially costing the area’s economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost labor income alone over the next month.

Experts say the  cost to rebuild  the collapsed bridge could be at least $400 million or as much as twice that, though much will depend on the new design.

The amount of money families can generally be awarded for wrongful death claims in maritime law cases is subject to several factors, including how much money the person would have likely provided in financial support to their family if they had not died.

Generally, wrongful death damages may also include things such as funeral expenses and the “loss of nurture,” which is essentially the monetary value assigned to whatever moral, spiritual or practical guidance the victim would have been able to provide to their children.

Associated Press writer Stefanie Dazio in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Latest in Leadership

• 0 minutes ago

TikTok eyes removal of exec in charge of placating U.S. government after House passes divest-or-ban bill

The case against work friends: The office has changed. Maybe it’s time our relationships do too

At least 5 companies under Elon Musk’s control billed each other around $9 million in expenses

Nobel laureate Esther Duflo proposes taxing 3,000 billionaires to protect the world’s poorest from climate change—and most Americans likely agree with the plan

The ghosts of ‘Wintel’: What leaders can learn from the diverging paths that made Microsoft a $3 trillion powerhouse and flatlined Intel

Uber and authorities are probing hoax calls made to an 81-year old man that allegedly led him to shoot a female driver

Most popular.

Former HGTV star slapped with $10 million fine and jail time for real estate fraud

Your reusable water bottle may be a breeding ground for strep and fecal bacteria. Here’s how to keep it clean

Exclusive: Mercedes becomes the first automaker to sell autonomous cars in the U.S. that don’t come with a requirement that drivers watch the road

A dot-com entrepreneur who once lost $6 billion in one day has made billions from the Bitcoin rally and his company’s surging shares

COVID-19 Update: Our services are available as usual.Hire the best Singapore assignment writers to work for you, so you can ensure highest grades ! Order now

• Nursing /Healthcare
• Social Science
• Math Assignments
• Computer & IT
• Building Construction

Homework Help

• Dissertation
• Ghost writing
• Proofreading & Editing
• Research paper
• Report writing
• Online Exam Help
• Reviews 4.9/5
• LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials Assignment Sample SUSS, Singapore Singapore

• LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials Assignment Sample SUSS, Singapore

In this assignment sample, we will be going to discuss the LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials. Law203 Legal Writing & IT Essentials is a course on the art of writing and in particular, legal writing.

This course focuses not only on creating persuasive arguments supported by cases but also teaches students to use language as lawyers when analyzing positions with appropriate justification.

Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments

Native Singapore Writers Team

• 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
• Highest Satisfaction Rate
• Free Revision
• On-Time Delivery

The nuts and bolts of research are introduced through both hardcopy resources such as LexisNexis or Law Net for perfecting searches while providing support from relevant case law; In addition electronic databases like Westlaw, which provide access to specific laws that can be cross-referenced where necessary via other online sources such as LII (Legal Information Institute).

The course aim of this course is to provide a detailed exposure to the nuts and bolts of legal research, including writing legal analysis papers. This course also provides practical examples as well as the theoretical and analytical reasons behind formulating supporting positions to arguments one might present in an argumentative essay or debate situation.

A student will be considered successful if he/she is able to: Demonstrate an effective understanding of legal reasoning; demonstrate familiarity with different techniques; demonstrate knowledge of how lawyers argue cases using case law, statutes, and constitutions; and finally, develop strong analytical skills concerning what it means for something to be “law” and apply this insight in their own analysis. This course was designed to analyze the legal writing and IT essentials required of a law student. Specifically, students were supposed to be able to:

This course was designed to provide an overview of the law school experience and expectations. Students were expected to have a basic understanding of legal writing and IT essentials. The goal of this course is for students who are interested in pursuing a career in law to understand what they will be required of them as future lawyers and how academic success can become the foundation for professional success.

This class provides an introduction into advocacy, where we examine matters like Brief Writing; Oral Argumentation; Evidence Analysis/Litigation Tips; Client Interviewing; Case Law Research Techniques; and Practical Considerations when Prepping Cases (cite-checking, lines of questioning).

TOA, TMA, GBA Assignment Solution of LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials

At the end of this course, the student will be able to learn the fundamentals of Legal Writing and IT Essentials with the help of the following learning outcomes.

1. Explain the sources of law, and how it is made and developed; of the institutions within which that law is administered and the personnel who practice law

The sources of law are legislation, custom, and more generally common practice among the community. Legislation is a codified law passed by a country’s legislature. Custom is an accumulation of conduct or behaviour, usually over a long period of time, which is generally accepted to have the force of law without being written down in any foundational document.

Customs are believed to tell us how people actually behave rather than how they should behave according to some theoretical moral standard. Common practice refers to what generally happens or has happened recently in society at large and represents what is considered fair and just under normal conditions that may not be codified as rules or laws yet but could be if someone were persuaded enough about them.

Developed; of the institutions within which that law is administered are as follows:

Constitutional courts, national courts below them, and a variety of other international tribunals like administrative boards. Courts are only one institution in which laws are executed and adjudicated.

This answer deals exclusively with judiciary roles in enforcing and assessing that law. Private institutions (like banks) also play an essential role in “legal construction” by helping to establish interpreted principles of policy and precedent for legal actors outside the courts.

All told, governing legal codes account for more than 50 per cent or hundreds of bodies of law operating on a daily basis around the world.

2. Express their knowledge and understanding of a wide range of key legal concepts, values, principles, and rules of the law and explain the relationship between them in a number of subject areas

We can express their knowledge and understanding range of key legal concepts. This is an admirable commitment to understanding the law. Legal literacy is important for those involved in public administration, service providers, and educators; people from a huge variety of disciplines are legally literate to some degree or another, including engineers, psychologists, human resources professionals as well as many more.

Those experiencing mental health problems are often challenged by becoming familiar with the appropriate terminology they need in order to become engaged in treatment. Therefore it is imperative that everyone has at least an introductory comprehension of these terms. Understanding key legal concepts will enable you to facilitate open dialogue about decisions made about individuals on grounds of civil rights and liberty.

A law is nothing more than a formally established rule, created in order to enforce or regulate social behaviour. A law enforces habitual and acceptable acts and checks undesirable ones. A written law has the power of sanctions that make it impossible for people to escape, but oral laws are not so effective because there is no way of centralizing the violators.

The principles that follow are can be considered as rules of the law:

• Anything which exists already must be taken into account by-laws therefore this rule cannot be violated;
• Every person shall have only one penalty for each crime;
• Any means proved inadequate by being inefficient to secure justice shall not constitute a penalty; prisons exist specifically for punishing.

In general, the answer is that legal concepts and law have something in common. They both describe the power of people to prescribe what should or should not happen, as set out by law. However, each has its own aspects – a different way about them. Law contains pre-written legislation that sets out requirements and prohibitions; whilst legal concepts might be an idea around which related laws are built, based on values like justice and morality.

Buy high-quality essays & assignment writing as per particular university, high school or college by Singapore Writers

3. demonstrate the ability to use resource material to construct legal arguments..

An argument in a law case is not just about what the plaintiff claims, or whether the defendant was negligent. Arguments are also made about how jury instructions should be phrased. When a judge applies instructions to the relevant evidence, sometimes jurors may not make decisions that match with what they think they have been told to do.

For example, one judge (Hinkson) determined that jurors were hopelessly deadlocked after being instructed incorrectly, leading him to declare a mistrial and order the jury discharged–a decision he later retracted when able to clarify which mix-up had occurred and correct that confusion. Without appropriate arguments on issues like these–which effectively frame potential problems for both sides of a case–the result may be less.

4. Respond to a given fact pattern, identifying accurately the issues which require researching, identify and retrieve up-to-date legal information from all legal sources relevant to the topic under study

The internet has a wealth of information, some of which are reliable and some of which are not. Identifying accurately the issue that requires research legal information can be challenging since many web pages provide conflicting information. It is also important to be able to distinguish between facts (supported by sound evidence) and opinions (based on beliefs).

Each person’s situation is unique so it’s crucial that you understand what applies to your own personal case before making any decisions related to residential real estate law. For example, in different states, there are requirements for how long you have lived at a property before you become responsible for any taxes or fees due when the homeowner dies.

There are many different sources for legal information. It is best to consult a lawyer for advice about how to begin, but one of the more accessible resources is Robin D. Roberts’s Legal Research and Writing Center Web site about doing your own legal research).

The page includes an overview of a variety of resources: including primary law (current laws and statutes), secondary law (dictionary definitions), the internet, libraries, federal laws on “fair use” rights for copying material in libraries that have been published commercially and buying or borrowing copies from private owners or bookstores) and litigation.

5. Research and analyze independently the areas of law from standard legal resources on specific matters

There are some standard legal resources worth mentioning. For example, Westlaw and LexisNexis databases provide analysis of the law from scholars and practitioners, which should be taken into consideration when researching independently.

Furthermore, it is possible to receive mentorship if you attend a law school or undertake an apprenticeship in court procedures and laws for a few years at least.

We can analyze independently the areas of law from standard legal resources by doing a little extra research. To start, you should look up any law journal articles covering key cases that have been significant historically or whose decisions are currently relied on by courts’ reasoning about similar cases.

6. Advise a hypothetical client, using intellectual and practical skills to apply the knowledge, thought, and findings of research to provide arguable conclusions for concrete problems

It’s possible to advise a hypothetical client on many different things, depending on the specifics of their situation. We can offer professional opinions based on the facts available when there is still ample room for interpretation.

However, it may be difficult to provide advice when considering your own feelings and thoughts regarding the topic; which could be biased. It is only necessary that we limit ourselves to what we know about any potential beliefs or standards in order to perform our services with integrity and professionalism as per our moral obligations.

Thus, if you are not sure what arguable conclusion should be advised for an individual problem, take into account what you know about them and use this knowledge as a guideline for appropriate advice. We can advise a hypothetical client by stating that after exhausting the rational and logical resources of a dilemma, it may be time to begin meditating on the situation.

Meditation is truly only something that should be practised with encouragement from someone who has been practising meditation for some time. In this sense, we fully support taking any assistance you may need to coach your previous advice in order for it to be most effective.

Stuck with a lot of homework assignments and feeling stressed ? Take professional academic assistance & Get 100% Plagiarism free papers

7. discuss positions taken in a group setting and in a team environment.

In a group setting, it is okay to have conflicts. Lawyers are as human as the rabble they represent; the law is human, and no matter how objective the lawyer may feel about any particular subject, there are other issues that will affect the decision. Disputes should not be suppressed – after all, we can’t know where our allies lie until we hear what they think.

A team environment for legal matters engenders a different way of resolving disputes. A legal dispute need not mean war with one’s colleagues but instead can be seen as an opportunity to apply one’s intelligence and skill in order to defend both sides of a fractious issue and allow them both their best chance at prevailing and being vindicated.

8. Express ideas, concepts, and arguments in the English language and legal terminology with care and accuracy

we can express ideas, concepts, and arguments in the English language and legal terminology with care and accuracy by recognizing and resolving the weaknesses in our logic and by developing confidence in our arguments. We can do this by asking ourselves whether the ideas, concepts, and arguments we are presenting have logical flaws.

Avoid fallacies of reasoning- because most lawyers will only see them on a real bar exam (if at all), it is worthwhile to review what fallacies there are.

In short, a fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders the argument invalid­—that is, such that no matter how much truth the premises contain, if one or more of those premises do not lead to their stated conclusion then something has gone wrong with the line of thinking.

9. Employ information technology in an office environment for the search for information, the preparation of documents and presentations

We can employ information technology in an office environment for the search for information, the preparation of documents and presentations.

Firstly, we can employ information technology in an office environment for the search for information. In this context, one use of IT is to facilitate communication within organizations by enabling employees to work more efficiently together.

For example, email is often used as a form of the internal messaging system within an organization where employees exchange messages about what they are doing or need to do next without having to be face-to-face with each other.

Email enables message senders rather than just conveyors; it brings a sense of presence between them because they can communicate instantly and on a daily basis despite their physical distance apart.

Get plagiarism-free Answer of LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials in Singapore

The above assignment is based on LAW 201 Critical Thinking and Legal Interpretation sample of SUSS, Singapore.

We know that you facing difficulties to solve tutor-marked assignments then hire our professional assignment writers in Singapore . Take our online homework help ; you will get the Top-notch quality of assignments at very reasonable prices for every Singaporean student.

If you want to achieve A+ grades in the online exam of SUSS then take online exam help Singapore . Our experts will always be available for you 24×7 hrs to resolve any type of academic problem and never disappoint you. So take advantage now! Our skilled experts never deny any task.

Further, you can also check our other samples like Critical Thinking and Legal Interpretation , Mind and Body Work in Expressive Arts Therapy .

Apart from that, one of the hardest parts for Singaporean students is the Criminal law assignments . So every student can’t solve it quickly. Don’t worry! Then hire our criminal law experts to write a Criminal law assignment Singapore 100% unique at a very low cost. Avail now.

• GSP165 The Law and You, SUSS, Assignment Answer, Singapore
• LAW0115 CA2 Business Law Case Study (Individual Assignment) Sample SIM Singapore
• BCD 1004 Fundamental Principles of Commercial Law Individual Assignment Sample Singapore
• BSL202 Workplace Law Mid-term Murdoch Assignment Sample Singapore
• BPM105 Construction Law SUSS Assignment Sample Singapore
• PSS351 Criminological Perspectives In Punishment Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS313 Restorative Justice Principles And Practices Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS311 Desistance From Crime Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS305 Criminological Theories And Intervention Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS213 Criminal Law In Practice Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS103 Crime, Justice And Punishment Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• PSS101 Introduction To The Singapore Legal System Assignment Sample SUSS Singapore
• SOC355 Sociology of Law and Order Assignment Sample SUSS
• OHSE 3720 EOHS Law assignment sample UON Singapore

Ask Your Homework Today!

We have over 1000 academic writers ready and waiting to help you achieve academic success

Assignment Help Services

Dissertation Help

Essay Writing Help

Case Study Help

Law Assignment Help

Thesis Writing Help

Pay To Do Assignments

Finance Assignment Help

It's your first order ?

Use discount code SAH15 and get 15% off

• The Star ePaper
• Subscriptions
• Manage Profile
• Change Password
• Manage Logins
• Manage Subscription
• Transaction History
• Manage Billing Info
• Manage For You
• Manage Bookmarks
• Package & Pricing

Cordlife scandal: Parental fury after stem cell bank ruins thousands of samples in Singapore

Sunday, 21 Apr 2024

Related News

Vietnam surpasses India and Thailand and now becomes biggest rice supplier for Singapore

Travellers to and from singapore carrying over s$20,000 must submit online declaration from may 13, world no.1 and crowd favourite viktor axelsen headlines list of big guns vying for singapore badminton open.

Image from Bloomberg.

SINGAPORE (Bloomberg): Thousands of parents in Singapore are furious, with some now pursuing legal action, after a major operator of cord blood banks in Asia irreparably damaged their children’s samples through improper handling.

The ongoing case, one of the worst to hit the largely untested industry, has renewed concerns over companies marketing themselves to anxious parents with mostly unproven assurances. The scandal now engulfing Cordlife Group Ltd. has implications across the region, given its operations in Hong Kong, Macau, Indonesia, the Philippines and India.

The parents paid for years to have their infants’ cord blood stored, with the understanding that the stem cells they contained may provide life-saving protection if their children subsequently fell ill. They have formed a group to evaluate potential legal action. Some rejected Singapore-based Cordlife’s proposal to refund the fees for samples deemed to be damaged, saying it was inadequate.

The company has "little regard and no remorse for losing something so precious,” said one parent, who was offered about S$5,000 ($3,679.3). Any penalty meted out by Singapore’s Ministry of Health must serve as a warning to all cord blood bank providers, they said, asking to remain anonymous to protect the family’s privacy.

Police Report

The agency found about 2,200 units of cord blood in one holding tank were damaged, and an estimated 5,300 units in another tank plus a dry shipper were "non-viable.” The root cause was insufficient levels of liquid nitrogen in the tanks and inadequate monitoring of the dry shipper, which led to temperatures rising above acceptable levels several times since November 2020.

Cordlife lodged a police report accusing "mostly former” staff members of potential wrongdoing in connection with the defects on April 17. Its former chief executive and five board members were arrested earlier this year for alleged breaches of disclosure obligations, according to company fillings. Three other board members, including those who filed the police report, postponed their own interviews with authorities.

The situation has the company’s clients in other parts of the region on alert, with parents in Hong Kong taking to social media to express concerns about the tanks in their area.

Cordlife has reviewed its operations in other markets and found no concerns, it said in an emailed response to questions.

Blood extracted from an umbilical cord is full of stem cells, a miraculous feat of biology that can turn into any type of blood cell. They are particularly useful in the treatment of some cancers, blood diseases like anemia and an array of immune system disorders. However, any genetic or other defects present when the child is born will also be found in the stem cells, in some cases rendering them useless.

It’s the loss of any potential protection that has some parents alarmed. Michelle Chan, one of the parents, said she’s seeking "appropriate compensation” so she can search for a future match on her own.

"I’m not bothered about the money I have paid, but importantly how to move forward,” she said.

Unsupported

Still, many medical organizations don’t support the use of private cord blood banking.

Commercial organizations charge to extract the cord blood, plus an annual fee to store it. The sample is reserved for the donor and the family. Public banks take cord blood donations freely, but they’re available to anyone in need and aren’t held in reserve for the donating child.

Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American Medical Association recommends storing cord blood as a form of "biological insurance.” Most children never need it and siblings have only a 25% shot at a match, making the benefits too rare to justify the cost. Often alternative treatments are available, effective and far less expensive, according to their guidelines.

A study found only one in 400 children to one in 200,000 children with stored cord blood would be able to use it throughout their lifetime. Only seven units have been retrieved from Cordlife’s Singapore facility since the company was founded in 2001, while tens of thousands of families have used it to store blood samples.

Singapore’s Ministry of Health found similar usage rates among other commercial cord blood banks in the city-state.

The Cordlife situation underscores the difficulty of overseeing the industry and the high cost of investigations when deficits are uncovered. The health ministry’s probe started with a complaint in July 2023 from a member of the public, after the company cleared a routine inspection in late 2022. No other details are available.

More tests are now needed for other tanks that had misplaced temperature probes. They contain 14,000 units of cord blood, each stored by a family seeking to protect a child. While initial testing of 30 samples passed a validity test, it would take another year and more than 200 samples to obtain statistically significant results, according to the Ministry of Health.

The uncertainty is weighing on parents who paid upfront to ease their anxiety about potential future medical risks.

Madam Tan, who has two sons with cord blood in the tanks that are still to be tested, said she’s unnerved about the situation.

"It’s out of my control,” she said. "Even if I call them everyday, I can’t do anything.”

She paid more than S$5,000 for each son’s cord blood storage after seeing the company’s "one chance, one choice” advertisements in a private clinic.

"It played on new parents’ anxiety that something of a perfect match can exist to help my child just in case something happens,” she said.

Now she’s finding that might not be the case. -- ©2024 Bloomberg L.P.

Tags / Keywords: Singapore , Cordlife , Scandal , stem cells , Parents , Furious

Found a mistake in this article?

Report it to us.

Thank you for your report!

TAYLOR’S EXCELS IN GLOBAL RANKINGS

Next in aseanplus news.

Trending in AseanPlus

Air pollutant index, highest api readings, select state and location to view the latest api reading.

• Select Location

Source: Department of Environment, Malaysia

Others Also Read

Best viewed on Chrome browsers.

We would love to keep you posted on the latest promotion. Kindly fill the form below

Thank you for downloading.

We hope you enjoy this feature!

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to step down after 20 years

• Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to step down after 20 years on x (opens in a new window)
• Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to step down after 20 years on facebook (opens in a new window)
• Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to step down after 20 years on linkedin (opens in a new window)
• Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to step down after 20 years on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Mercedes Ruehl in Singapore

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will step down next month after nearly 20 years in power, handing over to his deputy in what will be only the third leadership transition in the Asian financial hub’s modern history.

Lawrence Wong, deputy prime minister and finance minister, will become Singapore’s leader on May 15 after being named heir apparent in 2022 as part of the ruling People’s Action party’s long-standing succession plan.

The departure of Lee , the son of Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, raises expectations for a consequential general election that could be held as soon as this year.

The PAP, which has governed Singapore since independence, earned one of the lowest vote shares in the 2020 election in the city-state’s history. The party has been seeking to recover public support and bolster Singapore’s status as a trade and financial hub amid an increasingly febrile geopolitical backdrop.

In a post on social media platform X, Lee, who has served as prime minister since 2004, asked Singaporeans “to give Lawrence and his team your full support, and work with them to create a brighter future for Singapore”.

Wong said in a video statement he never expected to be asked to be the prime minister when he entered politics in 2011. “I accept this responsibility with humility and a deep sense of duty,” he said.

The succession marks an important moment in Singapore ’s modern history, as just the third time the leadership baton has been passed since independence in 1965.

While planning to ensure a smooth succession had been under way for years, the process has also faced a number of setbacks.

Lee, 72, had intended to step down before turning 70, plans that were derailed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The PAP’s succession strategy was thrown into disarray in 2021 after deputy prime minister Heng Swee Keat resigned as leader of the so-called fourth-generation team, a group of younger ministers lined up to take the reins of the governing party.

Wong, 51, was announced as 4G leader in April 2022, and will become only the second Singaporean premier who is not a member of the Lee family.

He will face a difficult task in maintaining Singapore’s delicate geopolitical balancing act. A trading entrepot, Singapore has evolved into one of Asia’s main financial hubs while maintaining its neutrality between east and west. But its open economy makes it vulnerable to macroeconomic issues and US-China rivalry.

Wong warned last year that aspects of the Washington-Beijing rift appeared “insurmountable” and that tensions over the Taiwan Strait were becoming the region’s “most dangerous flashpoint”.

He also faces a challenging domestic environment, with rising discontent over inequality and rising costs of living , in particular housing.

Linda Lim, a Singaporean and professor emerita of business at the University of Michigan who knew Wong when he studied economics there, said he would take over at a time when Singapore faces many new internal and external challenges, including to its economic model.

“This is the opportunity for [Wong] and the rest of his leadership team to show that they can meet these challenges with fresh ideas and a more participatory democracy and inclusive economy than has hitherto characterised the nation’s political system.”

Manu Bhaskaran, an economist and chief executive of consultancy Centennial Asia Advisors, said another question following the “well choreographed” succession was whether there would be an early general election. Singapore is due to hold elections by November 2025, but is widely expected to do so as soon as September this year.

“There is a lot of talk that the elections will be held well before the deadline. I would think Wong would want his own mandate to lead,” Bhaskaran said.

In the longer term, Wong will have to contend with a range of geopolitical challenges as well as maintain Singapore’s competitiveness given the rise of rivals such as Dubai and a high-cost structure, Bhaskaran added.

“We have done well over the past few decades but how do you maintain that? That is his big challenge.”

Promoted Content

Follow the topics in this article.

• Government of Singapore Add to myFT
• Lawrence Wong Add to myFT
• Lee Hsien Loong Add to myFT
• Singapore Add to myFT
• Mercedes Ruehl Add to myFT

International Edition

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.