Judgment Header
Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322
Court DecisionSGHC
[2015] SGHC 322
[2015] SGHC 322
General Division of the High Court of Singapore17 Dec 2015Originating Summons Nos 1064, 1065 and 1066 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 11 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
11Later cases and laws citing this decision
“and not an abuse of process, for example, to ‘game’ the system for the purpose of obtaining restraining orders without a genuine and bona fide intention to restructure, see Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322, (“Bona Fides”). In the context of a similar abuse in judicial management, see Novabrite (supra). **Note”
“er will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 obtaining restraining orders without a genuine and bona fide intention to restructure, see Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322, (“Bona Fides”). …”. The 1st & 2nd Grounds”
“of the Companies Act may not be available in circumstances equivalent to the present, as no plan with sufficient particularity had been produced yet: see Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322. The differences between our regime and that in Korea may seem incongruous. However, such differences sho”
“it was nothing more than an attempt to game the system in an effort to procure a moratorium under s 210(10). Heavy reliance was placed on the decision in Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 (“Conchubar”). It was also argued that the Plan was only filed to satisfy my direction that a plan be pre”
“pplication for moratorium relief under s 210(10) was not dependent on a prior application to convene a scheme meeting under s 210(1) having been made (see Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 (“Conchubar”) at [8]–[11]). Second, and as a consequence of the first, the proposed compromise or arrang”
Show 6 moreShow fewer
“nd necessarily incomplete. The appellant relies on Re IM Skaugen SE and other matters [2019] 3 SLR 979 at [35], where the court adopted the test stated in Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322, in the context of a moratorium application relating to a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act”
“While the test was expressed in Pacific Andes and Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 as requiring a reasonable prospect of the scheme working and being acceptable to the general run of the creditors, such support by the creditors was not sufficient on its own. The former limb of the”
“attempt to game the system by companies seeking the benefit of restraint orders without putting forward a serious proposal (see the High Court decision of Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 at [14]). In assessing bona fides, the court will look at whether the proposal is sufficiently particula”
“beyond the broadbrush assessment that the court should limit itself to in a moratorium application (IM Skaugen at [56]–[57]; Pacific Andes at [65], citing Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 at [12]), and I thus decline to consider them in detail. I will simply observe that:”
“made bona fides and is not an attempt to game the system by companies seeking the benefit of restraint orders without putting forward a serious proposal: Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters [2015] SGHC 322 at [14]. In assessing the company’s bona fides, the court will look at whether the proposal is sufficient”
“e or that it covers most contingencies – instead it is simply to ensure that the plan should be sufficiently detailed for the Court to broadly consider its feasibility: see Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322 at [12]. The plan, while admittedly not the most comprehensive and quite a number of question marks rema”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Originating Summons Nos 1064, 1065 and 1066 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-12-17
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.