Cryptocurrency Group Granted Moratoria for Global Restructuring Plan in Singapore 加密货币集团在新加坡法庭获得全球重组计划之暂缓

9 November 2023|In Legal Updates

Earlier this year, the Singapore High Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 981. This case concerned the restructuring of the Babel Finance group of companies (“BFG”), which had found itself grappling with extensive cryptocurrency market-related debts, amounting to over US$1.5 billion.
今年早些时候,新加坡高等法院在“Re Babel Holding Ltd及其他事项 [2023] SGHC 98”一案中做出了一项重要判决。该判决及对巴贝尔金融集团(简称“BFG集团”)进行的全球重组。BFG集团的涉及加密货币市场的债务总额超过15亿美元。

Substantive Consolidation Concept:

A pivotal aspect of the court’s ruling pertained to substantive consolidation, a legal concept that allows the merging of assets and liabilities from different entities within a group. This ruling deviates from the traditional legal doctrine that treats each company within a group as a distinct legal entity with separate assets and liabilities. It suggests that in certain situations, a scheme of arrangement can override this doctrine, aligning with legal precedents from Australia2 and England3 and statutory provisions in the USA4 and New Zealand5. It requires an examination of practical necessity in view of the debtors’ interrelationship, benefits versus potential harm to creditors, and an assessment of prejudice in the absence of consolidation.

Concluding Remarks:

In this case, the Singapore High Court also granted confidentiality orders to safeguard the identities of BFG’s creditors. This decision is particularly important in the cryptocurrency sphere, as it prevents market disturbances, commonly referred to as “contagion effects,” that could arise if creditor identities were disclosed.

This legal decision thus reflects the Singapore courts’ broader stance of being rather “receptive” to cryptocurrency and digital assets. Over time, Singapore courts have progressively recognized cryptocurrencies as property6 and clarified regulatory provisions such as Section 5 of the Payment Services Act 2019 (i.e., the said provision does not explicitly or impliedly prohibit contracts relating to the sale and purchase of cryptocurrency7), demonstrating a pragmatic and commercially-oriented approach.


2. Dean-Willcocks v Soluble Solutions Hydroponics Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 209
3. Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 3) [1993] BCLC 1490
4. Chapter 11, § 1123 of the US Bankruptcy Code
5. Section 271 of the New Zealand Companies Act 1993
6. at [142]
7. at [53] – [59]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This memorandum is only intended as a guide and does not purport to be an exhaustive or conclusive discussion of the matters set out herein and should not be relied on as a substitute for definitive legal advice. Reference should always be made to the applicable statutes, the relevant subsidiary legislations and other applicable guidelines. This memorandum is not to be transmitted to any other person nor is it to be relied upon by any other person or for any other purpose or quoted or referred to in any public document or filed with any governmental or other authorities without our consent in writing. This memorandum is limited to the laws of Singapore. In issuing this memorandum, we do not assume any obligation to notify or inform you of any developments subsequent to its date that might render its contents untrue or inaccurate in whole or in part at such later time. If you would like to discuss the implications of these legal developments on your business or obtain advice, please do not hesitate to approach your usual contact at Insights Law LLC or you may direct the inquiry to our key contacts stated above.