Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 MARCH 2020

Receivables Financing – Floating Charge vs Third Party Set-Off

It also discussed the impact of receivership on charged receivables, and how non-assignment clauses and third-party set-off rights could encroach on recovery of charged receivables.

SingaporeFinance and Banking

BP Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Aromatics Corp Pte Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) and others and another appeal [2020] SGCA 9

In an appeal against the High Court decision, the Singapore Court of Appeal ("CA") upheld that the vesting of an equitable interest in a debt in favour of secured creditors by way of a crystallised floating charge, was sufficient to destroy mutuality of debts required for insolvency set -off to occur. It also discussed the impact of receivership on charged receivables, and how non-assignment clauses and third-party set-off rights could encroach on recovery of charged receivables.

Key Facts

Financing by Senior Lenders: The joint venture Jurong Aromatics Corp Pte Ltd ("JAC") was tasked with the development of the Jurong Aromatics Plant on Jurong Island ("Plant"). JAC was financed by a syndicate of financiers ("Senior Lenders"), whose loans to JAC were secured by among other things, a debenture ("Debenture") between JAC and the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from