Credit Agricole v Rekasaran: Injunction Against Note Exchange & Asset Disposal

In Credit Agricole Indosuez and Others v Rekasaran BI Limited and Another, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by PT Bhakti Investama Tbk to intervene in an action where the Plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the Defendants from exchanging notes and disposing of assets pending arbitration. The court dismissed the intervener's application, finding doubts about the bona fides of the restructuring scheme the intervener sought to facilitate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Intervener's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding an injunction to prevent the exchange of notes and disposal of assets pending arbitration.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
State Bank of IndiaPlaintiffCorporationApplication by intervener dismissedNeutral
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero)DefendantCorporationApplication by intervener dismissedNeutral
Credit Agricole IndosuezPlaintiffCorporationApplication by intervener dismissedWon
Baden-Wuttembergishe Bank AGPlaintiffCorporationApplication by intervener dismissedNeutral
Rekasaran BI LimitedDefendantCorporationApplication by intervener dismissedNeutral
PT Bhakti Investama TbkApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Chien MienAllen & Gledhill
Andrew ChanAllen & Gledhill
Alvin TanWong Thomas & Leong
Annie WongWong Thomas & Leong

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the Defendants from exchanging notes and disposing of assets.
  2. The injunction was obtained ex parte in support of arbitration proceedings.
  3. PT Bhakti Investama Tbk applied to intervene, seeking to vary the injunction.
  4. The Intervener held approximately 40% of the Rekasaran Notes Issuance.
  5. The Intervener supported a restructuring plan involving an exchange of notes.
  6. The restructuring scheme would release the Second Defendant from its liabilities as guarantor.
  7. The Plaintiffs raised concerns about procedural impropriety and the viability of the restructuring scheme.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Credit Agricole Indosuez and Others v Rekasaran BI Limited and Another, OS 1428/2000, [2001] SGHC 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Programme Agreement dated entered into between the Defendants and the First Plaintiff
Agency Agreement dated entered into between the Defendants and the First Plaintiff
Deed of Covenant dated between the First Plaintiff, Cedel Bank, socit anonyme and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York issued
Arbitration proceedings commenced by notice of arbitration
Originating Summons issued
Plaintiffs applied for and obtained ex parte an injunction
Plaintiffs applied ex parte for the Originating Summons, the injunction and the application and the affidavit in relation thereto to be served on both Defendants outside the jurisdiction
Solicitors for PT Bhakti Investama Tbk applied by SIC 604442 of 2000 pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court and the inherent powers of the Court for orders
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Variation of Injunction
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the intervener's application to vary the injunction, finding doubts about the bona fides of the restructuring scheme.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Effect on third parties
      • Good faith of applicant
    • Related Cases:
      • [1978] 1 WLR 966
      • [1980] 1 LLR 632
      • [1984] 2 LLR 106
      • [1982] 1 WLR 539

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Investment Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management LtdN/AYes[1978] 1 WLR 966N/ACited for the principle that a non-party affected by an injunction can apply for its discharge.
The Angel BellN/AYes[1980] 1 LLR 632N/ACited regarding variation may be sought by an intervener to enable a defendant to pay back money, which the intervener has advanced to the defendant, in good faith in the ordinary course of business
Admiral Shipping v Portlink Ferries LtdN/AYes[1984] 2 LLR 106N/ACited regarding Mareva injunctions were not meant to improve the position of the plaintiff in the event of insolvency
Galaxia Maritime v Mineral import exportN/AYes[1982] 1 WLR 539N/ACited regarding variations may therefore be made to injunctions to permit bona fide transactions to be carried out.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Injunction
  • Noteholders
  • Notes
  • Restructuring Scheme
  • Arbitration
  • Guarantee
  • Intervener
  • Exchange Offer
  • Assets
  • Note Exchange

15.2 Keywords

  • injunction
  • arbitration
  • notes
  • restructuring
  • assets
  • singapore
  • credit agricole
  • rekasaran
  • pt bhakti investama

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions85
Arbitration70
Contract Law60
International Arbitration Act50
Banking and Finance40
Restructuring Arrangement30
Sovereign Immunity20

16. Subjects

  • Injunctions
  • Arbitration
  • Financial Instruments