Chen Weiwen Kelvin v DBS Bank Ltd and another

Mr Chen Weiwen Kelvin, the founder, executive director and chief executive of EUDA Health Holdings Limited, a NASDAQ-listed company, applied in Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 8 of 2025 for an interim order under Part 14 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to support a proposed voluntary arrangement, together with an eight-month "moratorium". DBS Bank Ltd and CIMB Bank Berhad appeared as non-parties.

According to his affidavit, from around January 2019 he used his personal credit cards to pay companies that had provided services to EUDA, allegedly on behalf of EUDA's subsidiaries, which were to reimburse him. The reimbursements stopped in January 2023 after a change in EUDA's board, and he could not pay his card bills in full. His affidavit put his total liabilities at $2,989,549.06, owed to four card issuers, IRAS, two EUDA subsidiaries, two 8i companies and two individuals. CIMB and DBS had started bankruptcy proceedings against him after statutory demands went unanswered. He said a bankruptcy order would hurt EUDA's share price because he would then be barred from executive roles.

His proposal had two stages: first, sell his 345,092 EUDA shares at the end of June 2025 and use the expected proceeds of about US$1.3m to pay the banks and IRAS; second, pay the remaining creditors once Interglobe Ventures Inc, a company he said he wholly owned, sold its EUDA shares in or around June 2026.

1. Whether the gateway conditions for an interim order under Part 14 of the IRDA were met, including which test of insolvency applies
2. Whether the proposal was serious and viable so that an interim order should be granted under s 279(2) of the IRDA
3. Whether an eight-month moratorium could and should be granted

On the gateway conditions, the court held that the only test of insolvency for the voluntary arrangement regime is the cash flow test. Part 14, unlike other provisions of the IRDA and the old Bankruptcy Act, does not list the ways a debtor may be insolvent; the regime exists to shield debtors from bankruptcy applications, and the grounds on which creditors may bring such applications all turn on inability to pay debts as they fall due. The court drew support from Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] 2 SLR 478 and from the UK Insolvency Act 1986. Counsel accepted the applicant had no cash to pay debts as they came due, so he was insolvent; he plainly intended to make the proposal, the nominee was qualified and willing, and there was no earlier application in the prior 12 months.

On seriousness, the court applied the serious-and-viable test from Re Sifan Triyono [2021] 4 SLR 656 and Re Yap Shiaw Wei (RHB Bank Bhd and others, non-parties) [2024] SGHC 232. The proposal gave no detail on how, when, to whom or at what price the shares would be sold, did not deal with a fall in share value, offered no evidence that he controlled Interglobe or explanation of how its sale proceeds would reach him, and said nothing about the other creditors before June 2026 or about the balance of the expected proceeds. It also failed several requirements of Reg 5(2) of the voluntary arrangement regulations, which the court treated as a strong sign that the proposal was not serious.

On viability, it was unclear when US securities rules would let him sell, as the rule was not explained or exhibited and counsel could not say when the restriction period began. DBS and CIMB opposed the proposal, and there was no evidence any other creditor supported it or even knew of it.

On the moratorium, no provision of Part 14 was identified. The court read the word in the Division 1 heading as referring to the interim order itself, so the prayer amounted to stretching that order to eight months; with no interim order granted there was no basis for it, and the court doubted it had power to grant such an open-ended moratorium anyway.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application in its entirety on 3 March 2025. The gateway conditions were satisfied, but the proposal was neither serious nor viable, so the interim order was refused; the prayer for an eight-month moratorium was also dismissed, and the court went on to hear the parties on costs.