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
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:
集团资产进行法定实质整合的概念：
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.
BFG集团一案判决的一个关键点涉及到了对BFG集团资产进行法定实质整合的操作。集团资产之法定实质整合是一个特别的法律概念，该法律概念允许对集团内不同法律实体的资产和负债进行整合并综合处理。BFG集团一案判决偏离了传统操作模式。传统模式一般认为一个集团内的具有法律独立人格的不同公司应被进行区别处理，且每家公司都具有独立法律人格，分别持有其对应的资产和负债。BFG集团一案判决的出台表明，在某些特定情况下，债务偿还安排也许会偏离传统法律教条。事实上，该偏离模式与澳大利亚和英格兰的法律先例以及美国和新西兰的法定规定类似。当然，这种对集团资产进行法定实质整合的操作需要对诸多方面进行实际可行分析，具体包括对债务人之间关系、该操作带来的对债权人利益与潜在损害之间的权衡，以及假设没有采用法定实质整合的操作的话，对利益相关方的损害进行评估。
Concluding Remarks:
本所观察:
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.
BFG集团这一案判决中，新加坡高等法院还发出了保密命令，旨在防止BFG集团的债权人的身份得到公开。该保密命令的发布在加密货币领域尤为重要，因为一旦债权人身份被公开披露，可能带来市场的恐慌与困扰，通常称为“传染效应”。
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.
BFG集团一案的盘踞充分反映了新加坡法院的总体立场，即新加坡对加密货币和数字资产持着相对“接纳”的态度。近年来，新加坡法院逐渐认可加密货币作为资产，并澄清了《2019年支付服务法》第5条的监管规定（即该规定不禁止与加密货币买卖相关的合同）。这个总体立场充分体现了新加坡司法界务实以及从商业发展角度出发的精神。
REFERENCES:
参考文献：
1. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_98
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. https://www.sicc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/modules-document/judgments/b2c2-ltd-v-quoine-pte-ltd.pdf at [142]
7. https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2023_SGHC_66 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.
重要提示：本备忘录仅用于参考，并不视作对本文所载事项的详尽或结论性的讨论，且不应被依赖作为替代明确的法律意见。应参考所适用的法规、有关附属法例、及其他适用的原则。未经本所书面同意，本备忘录不得向任何其他人传送，任何人也不得就任何目的依赖本备忘录，并于任何公共文件引述或专署，或提交给任何政府或有关当局。本备忘录仅限于新加坡的法律。本所就这份备忘录的发行，对较后时间日期发生的任何进展导致本备忘录所呈现的全部或部分不实或不准确的内容不承担任何义务。如果您想了解这些法律发展对您业务的影响或咨询意见，请随时与您智诚法律（新加坡）的联系人联系，或直接联系上述的主要联系人。
