Singapore: Extending Your Reach To The "Invisible Parties" To The Arbitration Agreement

Last Updated: 12 October 2017
Article by Kia Jeng Koh

Aggrieved claimants may sometimes seek to extend their claims not only to the company that agreed to arbitrate disputes – but also to that company's shareholders or ultimate controlling person(s).  Such efforts are usually driven by commercial realities – while the company may be insolvent, or asset-light and liability-heavy, the shareholders or ultimate controlling person(s) may have substantial assets. Even if these parties have not signed the arbitration agreement in question, it may still be possible to join them by "piercing the corporate veil" of the signatory company.

Singapore courts have recognized a tribunal's authority to join shareholders to an arbitration by piercing the corporate veil. In fact, Singapore courts have already enforced awards against parties who did not expressly sign the arbitration agreement. However, these cases have only involved awards rendered by tribunals seated outside of Singapore. Nonetheless, the Singapore courts reasoned that so long as the supervisory court of the seat has not set aside the award, Singapore courts will be inclined to enforcing the award.

However, insofar as arbitrations seated in Singapore are concerned, there appears to be no reported decision where the Singapore courts considered the issue of whether to set aside an award in which the arbitral tribunal had exercised its power to pierce the corporate veil. Recently, the Delhi High Court in Sudhir Gopi vs Indira Gandhi National Open University O.M.P. (COMM) 22/2016, engaged in this analysis – ultimately deciding to set aside an arbitration award because the Delhi High Court found that the tribunal did not have sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil in order to join the shareholders in question.

Below, we discuss the factors a Singapore court may consider when deciding whether to set aside an award in which the arbitral tribunal had exercised its power to pierce the corporate veil. Notably, the Singapore court's considerations may differ in cases where the tribunal has joined shareholders (on the grounds of the "alter ego" doctrine) versus when it has joined a company (on the grounds that the company is part of a "group of companies").

Ultimately, while a Singapore court may uphold an award against a non-signatory shareholder, it may choose to set aside an award against a non-signatory company.

A. Joining non-signatory shareholders or individuals

Subject to the precise terms of the arbitration agreement, Singapore courts recognize that tribunals have jurisdiction to "pierce the corporate veil" and join parties who have not explicitly signed an arbitration agreement, on the basis of the alter ego doctrine.

1. Who can be considered an alter ego of the signatory?

"Piercing the corporate veil" refers to the situation where the company's separate legal personality can be disregarded, and the individual shareholders can be made personally liable for the acts of the company. When the company is used as an extension or alter ego of its controller to carry out his own business, the corporate veil can be pierced so as to impose liability on the controller under the contract and the arbitration agreement.

In Singapore, both courts and arbitral tribunals have the power to join companies or individuals who are not formally signatories to the arbitration agreement, if they are involved in some material way in the underlying transaction or project. In fact, non-signatories may be considered a party to the arbitration via piercing of the corporate veil on the basis of the alter ego doctrine.

In Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and another [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 (Aloe Vera of America), the arbitration agreement was entered into between Aloe Vera of America Inc (AVA) and Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd (Asianic). However, it was the shareholder of Asianic, Mr Chiew Chee Boon (Mr Chiew) who had signed the contract containing the arbitration agreement on behalf of the Asianic. A dispute arose between AVA and Asianic, and AVA commenced arbitration proceedings against both Asianic and Mr Chiew.

Here, the arbitral tribunal found that Mr Chiew was "at all material times the president, a director and shareholder of Asianic and that Asianic was undercapitalised, failed to honour corporate formalities and was the alter ego of Mr Chiew", and rendered a final award ordering both Asianic and Mr Chiew to pay AVA damages. When AVA sought to enforce the arbitration award in Singapore, Mr Chiew sought a declaration that he was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

The Singapore High Court found that whether a person is an alter ego of a company is an issue which can in an appropriate case be decided by arbitration. In holding that Mr Chiew was a party to the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator was acting within his jurisdiction, as it was an accepted principle of arbitration law that an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether a particular person is party to an arbitration agreement. In this regard, if the tribunal had properly decided its jurisdiction under the law of Arizona, which was the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and the supervisory court in Arizona did not overrule the tribunal's finding, then the Singapore Court which is called to enforce the award is not entitled to look into the merits of the case. The Singapore High Court eventually upheld the assistant registrar's decision to grant AVA leave to enforce the arbitration award.

2. What laws apply to determine whether the non-signatory is an alter ego of the signatory?

Generally, the party seeking to join shareholders of a company who are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement has to demonstrate that piercing of the corporate veil will be appropriate under the laws of incorporation of the signatory company. However, the issue is that the definitions of alter ego vary materially across different jurisdictions, and are applied in various contexts. Thus, this raises an additional factor which parties should take into account before entering into arbitration agreements.

Some jurisdictions appear to be more open to piercing the corporate veil, while other jurisdictions appear to be less willing to do so. For instance, U.S. Courts appear to have been more prepared than courts in other jurisdictions to apply an alter ego analysis, so as to subject a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement to the arbitration proceedings.

In contrast, the English Courts appear to have been more hesitant to apply the alter ego doctrine in a similar context. This difference was recognised in the U.S. case of FR 8 Singapore Pte Ltd v Albacore Maritime Inc and others 794 F. Supp. 2d 449 where the plaintiff, FR 8 Singapore Pte Ltd (FR 8), commenced an action against the defendant, Albacore Maritime, and three other non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, to compel the non-signatories to arbitrate FR 8's claim in London as alter egos of Albacore Maritime.

In deciding whether to grant FR 8's motion, the District Court of New York noted that the U.S. federal common law of piercing the corporate veil is more favourable compared to English law. Nonetheless, the Court found that U.S. federal common law was not applicable as the contract between FR 8 and Albacore Maritime expressly provided for English law as the choice of law. Ultimately, the Court decided that based on English law, there were no grounds for the corporate veil to be pierced so as to compel the non-parties to arbitrate the FR 8's claim as alter egos of the Albacore Maritime. FR 8's motion was dismissed accordingly.

B. Joining a company under Group of Companies doctrine

Parties may also attempt to join an associated company that is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement under the group of companies doctrine.

It is common for corporate organizations to structure their business by incorporating numerous subsidiary companies that share a common source of control. In such cases, it may be possible to argue that the companies function as a "group of companies" or a "single economic entity". While arbitral tribunals seem to have the power to pierce the corporate veil so as to join shareholders to the arbitration, such powers do not extend to situations involving a group of companies thought to be a single economic entity.

Unlike the situation of piercing the corporate veil, the Singapore Courts do not recognise that arbitral tribunals have the jurisdiction to join associated companies to the arbitration agreement. In Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Ltd v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 832, the Singapore High Court found that the single economic entity concept has very little traction in the international arbitration community, especially outside jurisdictional issues (such as whether a company within the group is part of the group for the purposes of jurisdiction). Similarly, in the English case of Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm), the English Court rejected the "group of companies" doctrine, and found that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to award damages suffered by the group companies who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

One of the possible explanations why the courts hesitate to join associated companies under the doctrine of group of companies may be because the doctrine requires the arbitral tribunal to discern the subjective intentions of the parties, and enquire as to whether parties intended for the scope of the arbitration agreement to extend to the associated company. This seems to be stretching the notion that an arbitral tribunal has the power to decide its own jurisdiction a step too far.

C. Will Singapore courts ultimately set aside awards against a non-signatory party?

Singapore is seen as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. As such, party autonomy plays a central role in any tribunal or court's consideration. The starting point of all arbitrations is an agreement to arbitrate, and a party cannot be forced to arbitrate against its will or without its consent. In fact, this was recently affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2016] 1 SLR 373, where the Court held that an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the consent of the parties, as manifested in the arbitration agreement.

While it has been well-established that Singapore courts are deferential to the courts of the place of the seat of arbitration when enforcing an award, it remains to be seen whether Singapore courts will take a different approach when deciding on whether the arbitral tribunal should pierce the corporate veil so as to join a non-signatory party to the arbitration, when Singapore is the seat of the arbitration.

D. Implications for Businesses

If you are being joined as a party to the arbitration agreement, please seek legal advice.  This is to ascertain your rights and position and address the issue of whether the arbitral tribunal indeed has jurisdiction to allow such joinder, despite the lack of your express consent. As explained above, whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil will depend on the laws of incorporation of the signatory company. This may in turn raise complex choice of law issues. If an award has already been rendered against you even though you are a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, it may be possible to set aside the award or challenge the enforcement of the arbitration award.

If you intend to join a party to an arbitration that has not explicitly signed the arbitration agreement, it is prudent to consider whether (a) the laws of incorporation of the company being joined would support such a position and (b) whether the laws of the seat of arbitration support the position that arbitral tribunals have the jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil.

Dentons Rodyk has a host of experts in arbitration and associated litigation – including enforcement of awards and setting aside proceedings, and we are available to answer any questions you might have regarding this and other issues.

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions