{"title":"留下还是不留下?仲裁和破产制度的冲突","authors":"Darius Chan, Sidharrth Rajagopal","doi":"10.54648/joia2021023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt & Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.\n mandatory stay, triable issues, Salford, standard of review. insolvency, VTB, Lasmos, prima facie, Tomolugen","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Stay or Not to Stay? A Clash of Arbitration and Insolvency Regimes\",\"authors\":\"Darius Chan, Sidharrth Rajagopal\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/joia2021023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt & Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.\\n mandatory stay, triable issues, Salford, standard of review. insolvency, VTB, Lasmos, prima facie, Tomolugen\",\"PeriodicalId\":43527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Arbitration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Arbitration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在2019年全球冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行之后,未来几年债权人发起的清清程序可能会增加(例如,RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd.诉Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205)。与此同时,地缘政治的发展,如“一带一路”项目的规模和雄心,引发了对债务可持续性问题的质疑。鉴于仲裁条款在现代国际商事和项目协议中普遍存在,破产与争端解决,特别是仲裁之间的相互作用和关系需要仔细注意。虽然仲裁和破产制度之间的交集是众多和多方面的,(Jennifer Permesly等人,“IBA破产和仲裁工具包”国际律师协会(2021年3月),www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/仲裁/工具包-仲裁-破产。aspx(2021年4月18日访问),仲裁条款对清盘请愿的影响吸引了最近的判例法。英国、香港和新加坡的法院在如何处理受仲裁条款约束的有争议债务的清盘请愿的问题上,各自采取了不同的方法。一方面,香港法院目前似乎更倾向于采取对债权人相对友好的方式。另一方面,新加坡上诉法院最近制定了一个相对更有利于债务人的办法。通过对不同普通法管辖区所采取的方法进行比较分析,本文认为新加坡上诉法院的方法更为可取。然而,至少对于联合国国际贸易法委员会(贸易法委员会)示范法管辖范围内的法院(或采用《示范法》强制中止制度的司法管辖区),它们应当认定受仲裁条款约束的争议债务属于《示范法》强制中止制度的范围。该条进一步提出了一种可能的方式,使新加坡上诉法院的做法与新加坡颁布《示范法》所规定的强制暂缓制度相协调。强制停留,可审案件,索尔福德,审查标准。破产,VTB, Lasmos,初步调查,Tomolugen
To Stay or Not to Stay? A Clash of Arbitration and Insolvency Regimes
In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt & Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.
mandatory stay, triable issues, Salford, standard of review. insolvency, VTB, Lasmos, prima facie, Tomolugen
期刊介绍:
Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.