VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Dedar Singh Gill JC |
Judgment Date | 19 November 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGHC 250 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Companies Winding Up No 183 of 2018 |
Year | 2018 |
Published date | 15 April 2020 |
Hearing Date | 07 September 2018 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Shobna d/o V Chandran, Lee Chia Ming, Ashwin Nair Vijayakumar and Alexander Choo Wei Wen (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Daniel Soo and Cumara Kamalacumar (Selvam LLC) |
Citation | [2018] SGHC 250 |
This was an application by the plaintiff, VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) (“the Plaintiff”) to wind up the defendant, Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“the Defendant”), on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts. The Defendant opposed the application on the basis that there was a disputed debt between them that was governed by an arbitration agreement. This raised the issue of what standard of proof the Defendant was required to meet. Was it the orthodox standard for a dismissal of a winding up application, which requires the Defendant to show triable issues, or a different lower standard?
At the conclusion of the hearing on 7 September 2018, I found in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered that the Defendant be wound up. I now set out the full grounds of my decision.
Background factsThe Plaintiff is a state-owned Russian bank. The Defendant is a Singapore-incorporated company and its principal activity is that of a holding company.
The Global Master Repurchase AgreementOn 3 November 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a repurchase transaction with the Defendant on the terms set out in a global master repurchase agreement (“the GMRA”).1 Under the GMRA, the Defendant agreed to sell global depository receipts (“GDRs”) of shares in EN+ Group PLC (“EN+”) against payment of the purchase price by the Plaintiff, and to repurchase the GDRs on a later date at pre-agreed rates (“the Transaction”). The Defendant was under an obligation to maintain sufficient collateral in respect of the Transaction by maintaining the Repo Ratio (calculated in accordance with the formula in cl 20 of Annex 1 to the GMRA) at a level below the Margin Trigger Repo Ratio (defined as 60% in the GMRA), failing which the Plaintiff could exercise its contractual right to call on the Defendant to top up the amount of collateral. The Defendant was also under an obligation to maintain the Repo Ratio at a level below the Liquidation Repo Ratio (defined as 75% in the GMRA).
On 7 November 2017, pursuant to the GMRA, the Defendant sold the Plaintiff approximately 35,714,295 EN+ GDRs for approximately US$249,999,990. At the time, EN+ shares were worth approximately US$13 per share.2
On 6 April 2018, the United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control designated certain persons to its Specially Designated Nationals List, and among those on the list included EN+, Mr Oleg Deripaska (the ultimate controlling shareholder of EN+), and two direct major shareholders of EN+. The effect of this designation was that any assets belonging to these persons and subject to the US jurisdiction were frozen, and US persons were generally prohibited from dealing with them (“the OFAC Sanctions”). According to the Defendant, the OFAC Sanctions caused the share price of EN+ to plummet.3
On the same day, the Plaintiff issued a margin trigger event notice, informing the Defendant that the Repo Ratio had exceeded the Margin Trigger Repo Ratio and sought payment of a sufficient cash margin to restore the level of the Plaintiff’s collateral.4 The Defendant failed to do so within the contractually stipulated timeframe.
On 9 April 2018, EN+ shares were trading at US$5.60 per share.5
On 10 April 2018, the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant setting out the circumstances of the Defendant’s defaults under the GMRA.6 This was followed by a default notice on 12 April 2018, in which the Plaintiff designated 16 April 2018 as the early termination date.7
On 24 April 2018, the Plaintiff sent a calculation notice to inform the Defendant that the balance payable to the Plaintiff as of that date was US$170,292,452.03.8
On 19 July 2018, the Plaintiff sent a revised calculation notice to the Defendant setting out the revised balance payable as of that date, which was US$166,432,652.28.9
On 23 July 2018, the Plaintiff’s solicitors served a statutory demand for the sum of US$170,388,766.03 (being the revised balance payable plus accrued interest) on the Defendant.10 Three weeks lapsed without the Defendant paying the sum owed, or securing or compounding the same to the reasonable satisfaction of the Plaintiff.
On 30 July 2018, a subsidiary of the Defendant, AnAn International Limited, issued a company announcement on the Singapore Stock Exchange (“SGX”) website stating that the Defendant had received a statutory demand from the Plaintiff. The announcement went on to state:11
On 10 August 2018, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to the Plaintiff’s solicitors stating that the Defendant “disputes” the outstanding sum, and that the Defendant was in the process of applying for an injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from commencing winding up proceedings.12
On 11 August 2018, the Plaintiff’s solicitors responded via letter, highlighting that the Defendant had not, apart from a bare allegation, explained why the sum was disputed, or particularised or substantiated the alleged dispute. It was also pointed out that the GMRA did not contain a
Meanwhile, on 10 August 2018, the Defendant filed an application in Originating Summons No 975 of 2018 (“OS 975”) to restrain the Plaintiff from commencing proceedings or making any application for the winding up of the Defendant on the basis of the statutory demand. In its supporting affidavit for OS 975, the Defendant detailed how the OFAC Sanctions (described at [6] above) came about on 6 April 2018. According to the Defendant, the OFAC Sanctions caused the share price of EN+ to plummet from approximately US$12.20 (on 5 April 2018) to US$5.60 per share (on 9 April 2018). The Defendant went on to state:14
On 13 August 2018, the Defendant filed Summons No 3677 of 2018 (“SUM 3677”) in OS 975, which was an application for an interim injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from commencing proceedings to wind up the Defendant pending the disposal of OS 975. In the supporting affidavit for SUM 3677, the Defendant again took the position that the GMRA had been frustrated, and so there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the debt amount of US$170,388,766.03.15
SUM 3677 was heard by Andrew Ang SJ on 13 August 2018. At the hearing, counsel for the Defendant argued that because the alleged dispute as to the debt was governed by an arbitration agreement in the GMRA, the standard of proof it was required to meet was not that of triable issues. Rather, a different lower standard was applicable – the question was whether a
On 17 August 2018, the Plaintiff filed the present application in Companies Winding Up No 183 of 2018 (“CWU 183”) seeking to wind up the Defendant on two alternative bases:
On 20 August 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application in Summons No 3795 of 2018 (“SUM 3795”) to appoint three individuals as joint and several provisional liquidators of the Defendant.
On 24 August 2018, Ang SJ heard SUM 3795 on an expedited basis and granted the Plaintiff’s application to appoint the provisional liquidators.17 For completeness, I should mention that the Defendant appealed against this decision and also sought a stay of execution pending the outcome of the appeal. However, it subsequently withdrew the stay application after I ordered the Defendant to be wound up on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)
...was required to establish triable issues in relation to the debt: VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) v AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 250 (the “GD”) at [58]. In coming to his decision, the Judge was primarily persuaded by this court’s decision in Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holl......
-
Dayang (Hk) Marine Shipping Co., Ltd v Asia Master Logistics Ltd
...a trio of first-instance decisions in Singapore that had considered the Salford-Lasmos Approach – (i) BDG, (ii) VTB Bank v Anan Group [2018] SGHC 250 (19 November 2018) (“VTB Bank”), and (iii) BWF. The latter two decisions were decided after 107. BDG was the first Singaporean decision to co......
-
Bwf v Bwg
...the debtor is able to adduce evidence on affidavit that raises a triable issue. [emphasis in original] This was applied by the High Court in VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 250 This then formed a prefacing issue in this case, the lens through wh......
-
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)
...the application in CWU 183 and ordered Anan to be wound up (see, VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 250). The main point of contention in that hearing centred on the applicable standard of proof of a disputed debt when that debt is subject to an ar......
-
Winding up a company in record time despite claim of a dispute subject to arbitration
...In the recent High Court judgment in VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 250, Dentons Rodyk, acting for the plaintiff, successfully obtained a winding up order on a debtor company just six weeks after the service of a statutory demand for an un......
-
Starboard News: Will all the Stars be aligned?
...appeal to the Singapore Court of Appeal. There is a competing case, VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co.) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 250, also on appeal, in which Dentons Rodyk is involved, which decides that the applicable test is the existence of a “triable issue”, that is t......