Article on Model Law adoption

{{socialLink.name}}

{{lL.name }} {{lL.languageCode | uppercase}}

Skip to main navigation

Skip to content

Skip to footer

Office details

Industries and practices

Our people

Careers

{{lL.name }} {{lL.languageCode | uppercase}}

{{lL.name }} {{lL.languageCode | uppercase}}

{{suggestionHead.categoryName}} {{suggestion.name}} {{suggestionHead.categoryName}} {{suggestion.name}}

Home

Insights

The Singapore Ministry of Law accepted the recommendations of the Committee to Enhance Singapore's Corporate Debt Restructuring and Insolvency Framework, which includes the adoption, in its entirety, of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (MLRIJ) as well as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency (MLEG). Singapore would be the first country to adopt either of the two model laws.

The proposed adoption of the MLRIJ raises an interesting question. Is Singapore introducing an entirely new mechanism for the recognition of foreign insolvency judgments, or is it providing statutory expression to an approach that has already emerged through judicial interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (MLCBI)?

The question arises because Singapore courts have already recognised that substantive insolvency-related judgments may, in appropriate circumstances, be recognised and enforced under the MLCBI as enacted in the Third Schedule to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA).

Against that backdrop, the significance of the MLRIJ lies not merely in the introduction of a new recognition mechanism. More fundamentally, it requires consideration of the relationship between the MLCBI and the MLRIJ, the distinct functions served by each regime, and the future direction of Singapore's cross-border insolvency jurisprudence.

Even before the proposed adoption of the MLRIJ, Singapore had emerged as one of the more progressive jurisdictions in this area. Through a purposive interpretation of the MLCBI, the courts demonstrated a willingness to give effect to foreign insolvency outcomes notwithstanding the absence of an express legislative framework governing insolvency-related judgments.

In Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC 206, the Singapore High Court considered whether a restructuring plan sanctioned by the Indonesian courts could be recognised under Singapore's implementation of the MLCBI. The Court concluded that it could, granting relief under Articles 20 and 21 of the Model Law.

Significantly, the Court held that Article 21 was capable of extending to the recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from insolvency proceedings. In practical terms, the Court was prepared to give effect in Singapore to the legal consequences of the Indonesian court-approved composition plan. The reasoning drew support from developments in other jurisdictions, particularly US Chapter 15 jurisprudence, and reflected the broader objective of facilitating effective cross-border restructurings.

The approach adopted in Garuda was subsequently reinforced in Re Terraform Labs Pte Ltd. There, the Singapore International Commercial Court recognised and enforced a US Chapter 11 plan confirmation order under the MLCBI, thereby giving effect in Singapore to the foreign reorganisation plan.

Taken together, Garuda and Terraform demonstrate that Singapore courts have already accepted the central premise underlying the MLRIJ: namely, that insolvency-related judgments should not necessarily be treated in the same manner as ordinary foreign civil judgments. Instead, such judgments may warrant recognition as part of a broader framework of cross-border insolvency cooperation.

The question therefore becomes why Singapore has nevertheless chosen to adopt the MLRIJ.

The Committee Report’s recommendation to adopt the MLRIJ (despite acknowledging that Singapore courts have already enforced insolvency judgments under the MLCBI) is significant. Notably, the recommendation rests on broader considerations of certainty, harmonisation and institutional design.

Greater legal certainty. The most obvious benefit of the MLRIJ is certainty. While Garuda and Terraform establish that insolvency-related judgments may be recognised through the MLCBI, the precise juridical basis for such recognition remains dependent upon the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21. Questions may still arise regarding the outer limits of those provisions, the relationship between recognition of foreign proceedings and recognition of judgments and the categories of judgments capable of recognition. The MLRIJ addresses these issues directly by defining the scope of recognisable insolvency-related judgments, prescribing procedures for recognition and identifying specific grounds on which recognition may be refused.

Alignment with UNCITRAL’s architecture. The proposed reform also aligns Singapore more closely with UNCITRAL's broader architecture for cross-border insolvency co-operation. Together, the MLCBI, the MLRIJ and the MLEG form a coherent framework addressing recognition of foreign proceedings, recognition of insolvency-related judgments and co-ordination of multinational group insolvencies. Adoption of all three instruments further reinforces Singapore's position as a jurisdiction committed to international restructuring co-operation.

A broader & more predictable regime. The MLRIJ may, in certain respects, offer a broader and more direct route than the jurisprudential path developed under the MLCBI. In Garuda, recognition of the Indonesian restructuring plan was granted as relief ancillary to the recognition of the Indonesian insolvency proceeding. By contrast, the MLRIJ permits recognition of an insolvency-related judgment in its own right, without requiring prior recognition of the underlying foreign proceeding.

The MLRIJ may also prove complementary to the existing MLCBI regime. In Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd (in liquidation) v Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore) Ltd [2026] SGCA 12, the foreign liquidators were unable to invoke Singapore's domestic avoidance provisions because of the limitation contained in Article 23(9) of the MLCBI. While the case did was decided before the MLRIJ was enacted and was brought on a different basis, it illustrates how a dedicated judgment-recognition regime could provide an alternative route in certain circumstances. Had the liquidators first obtained a judgment from the foreign insolvency court, the MLRIJ might have provided a basis for seeking recognition and enforcement of that judgment in Singapore. The significance of the MLRIJ therefore lies not merely in expanding available remedies, but in introducing a distinct mechanism through which insolvency-related outcomes may be given effect across borders.

The most interesting question is whether the MLRIJ will displace the approach adopted in Garuda and Terraform, or simply codify and augment it. There are good reasons to think it will be the latter.

First, neither the Committee Report nor the Ministry’s acceptance of the recommendations contains any criticism of those court decisions. On the contrary, the Report expressly acknowledges that Singapore courts have already enforced insolvency judgments under the MLCBI before recommending adoption of the MLRIJ. This phrasing implies that the legislative intent is to support and fortify the direction in which the jurisprudence was headed, not to roll it back or choose a different course.

Second, courts generally seek to interpret new legislation harmoniously with existing jurisprudence where possible. It is likely that the MLRIJ becomes the primary statutory route for recognition of insolvency-related judgments, while Garuda and Terraform continue to influence the interpretation of both the MLCBI and the MLRIJ. For instance, if a case arises where a foreign representative seeks enforcement of a plan or judgment and it is unclear whether MLRIJ or MLCBI applies, the courts might use principles from Garuda to ensure consistency and fairness across the two regimes (for example, confirming that due process and submission to jurisdiction remain key considerations whether one proceeds under MLRIJ or via MLCBI relief).

Third, in practice we can expect MLRIJ and MLCBI to operate in complement. The MLRIJ will likely become the default choice whenever a discrete foreign insolvency judgment needs recognition in Singapore, especially if recognition of the foreign proceeding itself is not otherwise needed (or has already been granted). On the other hand, MLCBI will remain vital for the broader relief that MLRIJ does not cover directly (such as automatic moratoria, asset turnover, or simply the recognition of a foreign office-holder’s authority in Singapore). In many complex cases, a foreign insolvency representative might invoke both Model Law regimes: first using MLCBI to recognise the foreign main proceeding (securing a moratorium and coordinating the general administration of the case) and subsequently or in parallel using MLRIJ to enforce specific judgments or orders emanating from that proceeding (like a sanctioned restructuring plan or a judgment against a recalcitrant party). These dual tools can be used consistently: recognition of the proceeding under MLCBI sets the stage, and MLRIJ provides the finishing mechanism to enforce specific outcomes of that proceeding.

There does not appear to be any intention to repeal or narrow the existing MLCBI provisions. For example, Article 21 (appropriate relief) is expected to remain part of the law, and indeed the UNCITRAL practice contemplates that MLRIJ can coexist with MLCBI (the Model Law includes an optional article confirming that recognition of a foreign proceeding can inherently include recognition of related judgments). Thus, the “Garuda route” under Article 21 remains available, albeit going forward it may be less frequently relied upon if MLRIJ is the clearer path.

Singapore's adoption of the MLRIJ is best understood as the next stage in the development of its cross-border insolvency framework rather than a fundamental change in direction.

The decisions in Garuda and Terraform had already demonstrated that Singapore courts were prepared to recognise and give effect to foreign insolvency-related judgments through an expansive and purposive interpretation of the MLCBI. The MLRIJ now provides a dedicated statutory framework that enhances certainty, aligns Singapore more closely with UNCITRAL's broader architecture and further strengthens its position as a leading international restructuring centre.

Singapore would be the first country to adopt the MLRIJ and the MLEG which is significant in setting the international tone and may encourage other countries to do so. The experience gained in Singapore with both the MLCBI and the MLRIJ operating in parallel will no doubt also be of assistance to other countries contemplating the same.

IWIRC is recognized as a non governmental organization and is represented at meetings of Working Group V (Insolvency) at UNCITRAL. As such, members of IWIRC have had the opportunity over the years to contribute to the adoption of both the MLRIJ and the MLEG.

This article was first published on the IWIRC website on 10 July 2026.

Debby Lim Debby Lim Senior Partner, SingaporeSingaporeD +65 6885 3665 Email me debby.lim@dentons.com

Email me

debby.lim@dentons.com

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy

LinkedIn

X

Email

Print

© 2026 Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in Singapore with Registration No. T07LL0439G. Attorney advertising.

You will now be taken from the Dentons Rodyk website to the $redirectingsite website. To proceed, please click Accept.

Unsolicited emails and other information sent to Dentons will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create a lawyer-client relationship. If you are not already a client of Dentons, please do not send us any confidential information.

You are switching to another language. Please click Confirm below to continue.