Singapore: Judicial Management – The Effect Of Creditors' Third-Party Security On Their Voting Rights

Last Updated: 29 August 2018
Article by Sarjit Singh Gill and Probin Dass

Bank creditors often take security in the form of guarantees or mortgages given by the borrower's parent or affiliated companies. Such creditors enjoy a privileged position vis-à-vis unsecured creditors and there are rules to maintain fairness between these classes of creditors when a borrower in put into liquidation. However, as the recent case of Re Swiber Holdings Ltd shows there was until recently some uncertainty as to the application of such rules in the case of judicial management. The issues were complicated by the fact that, to some extent, the two companies under judicial management were borrower and guarantor. How are the votes of creditors to be counted?

1. When a defaulting borrower is put into liquidation, a bank creditor may generally maintain a proof of debt for the full amount of the debt, notwithstanding the existence of security from a third party. However, what is the position where the defaulting borrower is put under judicial management and meetings are to be called and votes taken? Should the creditor's vote be taken to represent the full value of the debt or only so much, if any, as is unsecured even by a third-party? In the judicial management of Swiber Holdings Ltd and Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd, this question arose because regulation 74 of the Companies Regulations ("reg 74") states:

For the purpose of voting, a secured creditor shall, unless he surrenders his security, state in his proof the particulars of his security, the date when it was given and the value at which he assesses it, and shall be entitled to vote only in respect of the balance (if any) due to him after deducting the value of his security. If the creditor votes in respect of his whole debt, he shall be deemed to have surrendered his security unless the court, on application, is satisfied that the omission to value the security has arisen from inadvertence.

2. The questions arose because unlike the corresponding provision in the Bankruptcy Rules which governs the personal bankruptcy regime, the term "secured creditor" is not defined by the Companies Regulations. For reference, section 2 of the Bankruptcy Act defines "secured creditor" as "a person holding a mortgage, pledge, charge, lien or other security on or against the property of the debtor or any part thereof as a security for a debt due to him from the debtor". Therefore, a creditor whose claim is secured by third-party security is not a "secured creditor" under the bankruptcy legislation.

3. The judicial managers applied to the Court for directions. The Judge phrased the questions he had to answer as follows:

a. first, is a creditor who holds a third-party security a "secured creditor" for the purpose of reg 74? If not, is the creditor entitled to vote for the full value of the third-party security? ("1st Issue");

b. second, is a creditor required to deduct the value of a third-party security for the purpose of voting in potential schemes of arrangement under s210 read with s227X of the Companies Act ("Act")? ("2nd Issue"); and

c. third, how does the analysis change, if at all, where the creditor has realised the security after lodging the proof of debt? ("3rd Issue").

The 1st Issue

4. The Judge answered the first part of this question in the negative. First, he relied on the words of reg 74 itself. As a matter of construction, a creditor can only be said to have surrendered his security when the effect is to augment the debtor's estate, ie, increasing the pool of assets available for distribution to the general body of creditors. Further, an asset provided by a third party to secure the debts of the debtor is not an asset of the debtor, and the debtor is not party to the arrangement between the creditor and the owner of the asset. Reg 74 could not have been intended to interfere with and abrogate the rights of the creditor arising from an arrangement to which the debtor is not a party and over an asset which does not belong to the debtor.

5. This construction of reg 74 was also consistent with the personal bankruptcy regime and the purpose of the legislation. The secured creditors are in a privileged position in respect of those assets, vis-à-vis the general pool of unsecured creditors who would otherwise be able to share those assets rateably among themselves. Therefore, it would be unfair that such secured creditors had an equal say with regards to unsecured assets of the debtor which are available to the general pool of creditors. Therefore, reg 74 was intended to redress this unfairness by permitting creditors to participate in decisions on the debtor's proposals, only to the extent their debts were not secured over the debtor's property. In such circumstances, if a secured creditor wanted to vote for the full value of its debt, it would have to surrender its security.

6. Accordingly, a creditor with third-party security was not a "secured creditor" under reg 74 and could vote for the full value of its claim against the debtor without deducting the value of the security. This would be the position even where the third party who gave the security was a subsidiary or an associate of the debtor company simply because such entities are distinct and separate legal persons.

The 2nd Issue

7. This issue was easier to answer than the 1st Issue. Regulation 61 of the Companies Regulations ("reg 61") provides:

Except where and so far as the nature of the subject-matter or the context may otherwise require, the regulations relating to meetings hereinafter set out shall apply to the first meeting and the judicial manager's meetings of creditors but so that those regulations shall take effect subject and without prejudice to any express provisions of the Act.

8. Therefore, reg 74 would only apply to creditors' meetings called for the approval of a scheme of arrangement under s210 read with s227X of the Act, if such meetings fell within the meaning of "the first meeting" or "the judicial manager's meetings of creditors" under reg 61.

9. Regulation 54 of the Companies Regulations defines "first meeting" as the "meeting of creditors under s227N(1) of the Act". However, where a creditors' meeting is called to vote on a scheme, this is done under s227X(a) read with s210 of the Act. As such, if a meeting is not called under s227N(1) of the Act, it cannot be a "first meeting" under reg 61.

10. Does such a meeting fall within "the judicial manager's meetings of creditors" under reg 61? The answer is found in regulation 60 of the Companies Regulations, which defines this term as meetings that "the judicial manager ... may himself from time to time ... summon, hold and conduct ...". Therefore, the reference is to discretionary meetings. However, meetings called under s227X(a) read with s210 of the Act are ordered by the court and therefore do not fall within reg 61.

11. Therefore, reg 74 did not apply to such meetings and creditors are not required deduct the value of third-party securities for the purpose of voting in potential schemes of arrangement under s210 read with s227X of the Act.

The 3rd Issue

12. The question here is, what is the position where the creditor realises its third-party security after lodging its proof of debt? Would he still be able to vote for the full value of the debt as filed or would he have to account for the amounts recovered through realisation of the security? There are two situations to consider. First, the insolvency of the principal debtor. Second, the insolvency of the guarantor.

13. Therefore, In the case of the insolvency of the principal debtor, a creditor is entitled to maintain a claim for the proof filed unless the debt is paid in full. The creditor is not required to reduce its proof of debt to reflect part-payments by a surety unless such payment extinguish the surety's obligations.

14. This is because until the surety's obligations are discharged in full it may not file its own proof of debt against the principal debtor. Therefore, if the guarantee is construed to be for the whole sum of the principal debt, the surety cannot file its proof of debt until the whole sum of the principal debt is paid to the creditor. This is the case even where the guarantee is limited in quantum. However, if the guarantee is only for part of the principal debt, the surety may file a proof of debt upon payment to the creditor of that part of the principal debt. Thereafter, the creditor will only be able to maintain its proof of debt up to the remaining balance due.

15. The rationale for these rules was explained in Goode on Legal Problems of Credit and Security:

... the rule has a sound policy base. It is a well settled principle of equity that until the creditor has received payment of the guaranteed debt in full the surety cannot prove in the debtor's estate for a sum paid by him to the creditor. The reason for this is that he has, expressly or by implication, undertaken to be responsible for the full sum guaranteed, including whatever remains due to the creditor after receipt of dividends by him out of the bankrupt's estate, and thus has no equity to prove for his right of reimbursement in competition with the creditor. If a creditor were required to give credit for a pre-bankruptcy part of payment by the surety, neither of them could prove for the amount of such payment and the general body of creditors would thus be unjustly enriched.

16. The Judge added that there ought to be a cut-off date for updates on proofs that have been filed and this date should be the day before the date of payment of dividends. The liquidator or judicial manager ought to set a time on the cut-off date by which all updates on the proofs of debt must be submitted.

17. In the case of the insolvency of the guarantor where the creditor has security over the principal debtor's property, the Judge declined to follow the English position affirmed in In re Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd, which allows a creditor to maintain the proof of debt it filed, even where it subsequently realises its security over the principal debtor's property and obtained partial satisfaction for its debt.

18. The Judge thought this position was untenable because:

a. the liability of a guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Therefore, if the principal debt is discharged in part, the liability of the guarantor reduces accordingly;

b. following from this, if the creditor realises its security over an asset of the principal debtor after filing its proof of debt in the insolvency of the guarantor, it should update its proof accordingly. If it were otherwise, the creditor would command disproportionate voting power in creditors' meetings; and

c. it was not "convenient and fair" to adopt the date of filing of the proof of debt as the cut-off date. The cut-off date should be the day before the date of the payment of the dividends. Therefore, a creditor should continue to update its proof until the day before the date of payment of dividends, if any.


19. This decision provides a very clear guide to insolvency professionals who may find themselves in the position of the judicial managers of Swiber. The interpretation of reg 74 aligns our corporate insolvency regime with the personal bankruptcy regime and protects the rights of creditors who took the benefit of third-party security.

20. The law recognises the right of a surety for a debt to be subrogated to the creditor's rights once the surety pays the creditor what is owed by the debtor. This is found in the Mercantile Law Amendment Act. Therefore, a creditor should not continue to pursue remedies against the debtor once it has been fully paid by the surety. Instead, the surety may do so, but until the surety fully pays the creditor, it cannot be said to have discharged the debtor's debt and become entitled to the remedies of the creditor, including filing its own proof of debt against the debtor. Therefore, partial payments by the surety even where such payment is up to the full monetary limit of the guarantee where it is so limited, would not suffice to require the creditor to reduce its proof of debt filing.

21. The position is not the same when it is the surety who is insolvent. The Mercantile Law Amendment Act does not apply. Instead, the principle that a surety's obligation is co-extensive with that of the debtor applies and, if the debtor's obligation is reduced by the creditor realising its security against the debtor's property, the obligation of the surety is reduced accordingly and the creditor should reduce its proof of debt against the surety.

22. As a practical matter, it is also very welcome that the Judge clarified that the cut-off for updating proofs of debt is a time fixed by the liquidator or judicial manager on the day before the date of payment of dividends, if any.

23. Thus, the case of Re Swiber Holdings Ltd [2018] SGHC 180 is a welcome addition to the body of case law that complements and supplements the insolvency legislation of Singapore.

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

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

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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