Aaquaverse Pte. Ltd.

[2023] SGHC 29 High Court (General Division) 10 February 2023 HC/OA 646/2022 · HC/OA 647/2022 · HC/OA 648/2022 · HC/OA 656/2022

2 cases cited Cited by 3 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	10 February 2023
Judge	Aedit Abdullah
Charges / claim	Companies
Counsel	Oon & Bazul LLP, Sharpe & Jagger LLC, Ammani Mathivanan, Han Guangyuan Keith, Samuel Richard Sharpe, Tan Mei Yen

Source: [2023] SGHC 29, High Court (General Division), decided 10 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Companies — Schemes of Arrangement — Moratoria — Reasonable Prospect of the Scheme Working

Practice Areas

Companies

Judges (1)

Aedit Abdullah Delivered

Counsel (6)

Oon & Bazul LLP Firm Sharpe & Jagger LLC Firm Ammani Mathivanan Counsel for the applicant Han Guangyuan Keith Counsel for the applicant Samuel Richard Sharpe Counsel for the third party

Tan Mei Yen Counsel for the applicant

Parties (5)

Aaqua BV Applicant

Aaqua Inc Applicant

Aaqua Pte Ltd Applicant

Aaquaverse Pte Ltd Applicant

Candy Ventures Sarl Third Party

Case Significance

Re Aaquaverse Pte Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 29 comprised brief remarks issued by Aedit Abdullah J in the General Division of the High Court on 10 February 2023, across Originating Applications Nos 646, 647, 648 and 656 of 2022. The remarks focused on whether the applicants had shown, for the purposes of an extension of moratoria under ss 64 and 65 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, that there was a reasonable prospect of the proposed scheme of arrangement working. The applications were made by companies in the Aaqua Group, including Aaquaverse Pte Ltd (the group holding company incorporated in Singapore), Aaqua BV (a Netherlands subsidiary), Aaqua Pte Ltd and Aaqua Inc, with Candy Ventures Sarl appearing as a third party.

Summary

Companies in the Aaqua Group, a largely Singapore-based start-up developing the Aaqua social media app, applied under ss 64 and 65 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to extend moratoria in support of a proposed scheme of arrangement pooling the group's assets. The central question was whether there was a reasonable prospect of the scheme working, with the court scrutinising the optimistic valuation of the app's intellectual property and shares in Audioboom. Finding the forecast of a better return than liquidation unsupported, the High Court dismissed the applications.

What question did the remarks in Re Aaquaverse [2023] SGHC 29 focus on?

The remarks focused on whether the applicants had shown, for an extension of moratoria under sections 64 and 65 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, that there was a reasonable prospect of the proposed scheme of arrangement working, before Aedit Abdullah J.

Which companies were the applicants in Re Aaquaverse [2023] SGHC 29?

The applicants were companies in the Aaqua Group, including Aaquaverse Pte Ltd (the group holding company incorporated in Singapore), Aaqua BV (a Netherlands subsidiary), Aaqua Pte Ltd and Aaqua Inc, across Originating Applications Nos 646, 647, 648 and 656 of 2022.