Re Fusionex Pte Ltd: Winding Up Application Under Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act

The High Court of Singapore heard an application by Fusionex Pte Ltd for a winding-up order under s 125(1)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The court, noting the lack of local precedent, considered Australian authorities and allowed the application, finding that the company had validly passed a special resolution for winding up and that there were no unconscionable or inequitable circumstances. Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd attended the hearing as a non-party but took no position. The court ordered the company to be wound up.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Company ordered to be wound up by the court under s 125(1)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Winding up application for Fusionex Pte Ltd under s 125(1)(a) of the IRDA allowed. The court considered the principles governing its discretion, taking guidance from foreign authorities.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Wong Li Kok, AlexJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Fusionex Pte Ltd was a Singapore-incorporated company in the business of information technology consultancy.
  2. The company was wholly owned by Fusionex Corp. Sdn. Bhd., a Malaysian-incorporated company.
  3. The management team of the Holding Company abruptly resigned between 4 December 2023 and 6 December 2023.
  4. The management refused to effect a proper handover, removing financial records and refusing access to IT servers.
  5. The company relied almost entirely on the Holding Company and other members of the Fusionex Group on finances, accounting and IT matters.
  6. The Sole Shareholder passed a special resolution for the Company to be wound up by this court on 20 December 2023.
  7. The company was unable to pursue a members’ voluntary winding up because there was insufficient information to make a declaration of solvency.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Fusionex Pte Ltd (Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd, non-party), Companies Winding Up No 265 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 51

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Management of Fusionex Group abruptly resigned
Hiroyuki Kumazaki appointed as CEO of Fusionex Group
Written resolution passed appointing Hiroyuki Kumazaki as CEO
Sole Shareholder passed a special resolution for the Company to be wound up
Winding-up application advertised
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Grounds for winding up
    • Outcome: The court held that the company could be wound up under s 125(1)(a) of the IRDA, exercising its discretion in favor of winding up given the valid special resolution and absence of bad faith or prejudice to creditors.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] NSWSC 1371

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Winding-up order

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Restructuring
  • Liquidation

11. Industries

  • Information Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chong Kok Ming and another v Richinn Technology Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 224SingaporeCited for the interpretation of s 254(1)(a) of the Companies Act, the predecessor provision of s 125(1)(a) of the IRDA, but distinguished on the facts.
Hillig as Administrator of Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council v Darkinjung Pty LtdSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2006] NSWSC 1371AustraliaCited as the leading authority on s 461(1)(a) of the Australian Corporations Act, which is in pari materia with s 125(1)(a) of the IRDA. The principles laid down in this case were adopted by the court.
MFS Alternative Assets (in liquidation) v Angstrom Assets Pty LtdSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2012] NSWSC 447AustraliaCited as an example of a case following Hillig where a winding-up order was made because the formalities were satisfied and there were no inequitable circumstances.
Re Fernlake Pty LtdSupreme Court of QueenslandYes(1994) 13 ACSR 600AustraliaCited as an example of unconscionable circumstances where the court refused a winding-up order because the special resolution was passed in breach of trust.
Griffin Energy Group Pty Ltd v Griffin Windfarm Holdings Pty Ltd, Re Griffin Energy Group Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Co Arrangement)Federal Court of AustraliaYes[2012] FCA 197AustraliaCited for the factor that lack of objection by affected parties favors the court making a winding-up order.
Kala Capital Pty LimitedSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2011] NSWSC 1253AustraliaCited for the factor that the lack of a functional board favors the court making a winding-up order.
CIC Insurance Ltd v Hannan & Co Pty LtdN/AYes(2001) 38 ACSR 245AustraliaCited for the principle that the absence of all internal machinery militates against the possibility of convening a creditors’ meeting for voluntary winding up.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
r 67(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring) Rules 2020

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
s 125(1)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
s 124(1)(d) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
s 124(2)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Winding up
  • Special resolution
  • Insolvency
  • Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
  • Fusionex Group
  • Sole Shareholder
  • Contributory
  • Creditors
  • Management resignation

15.2 Keywords

  • Winding up
  • Insolvency
  • Special resolution
  • Fusionex
  • Singapore
  • IRDA

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Law