Energe Asia Pte. Ltd.

Energe Asia Pte Ltd, a Singapore bunkering company whose sole director is Kingsley Khoo Hoi Leng, applied in HC/OA 1362/2025 for a four-month moratorium under s 64 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. It said market forces from late 2024 had eroded its working capital. Its plan was for a rescue investor, Koah Technologies Pte Ltd, to buy its unsecured debts for US$4m after a scheme of arrangement and later take all its shares for US$1; a non-binding term sheet was signed on 20 November 2025. As of 21 November 2025 it owed approximately US$39m to 29 unsecured creditors, and two creditors, Olea Global Pte Ltd and PETCO Trading Labuan Co Ltd, had filed winding-up applications whose debts the company said it disputed.

The largest creditor, Marin Selatan Sdn Bhd, together with Seroja Resources Pte Ltd and World Properties Pte Ltd, supported the application. PETCO, Olea, Aditya Birla Global Trading (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Flex Commodities FZCO objected. United Overseas Bank Ltd, a secured creditor holding a mortgage over the company's Tuas property, took no position but applied in HC/SUM 3633/2025 to carve its mortgage out of any moratorium. The High Court heard both matters and gave an ex tempore judgment on 23 December 2025.

1. Whether the procedural requirements for a moratorium under s 64 of the IRDA were met
2. Whether the moratorium application was made in good faith
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence of creditor support for the moratorium
4. Whether UOB's application to carve its mortgage out of the moratorium needed to be decided

The court described a s 64 moratorium as extraordinary relief that balances breathing space for restructuring against the protection of creditors. The overall test is whether there is a reasonable prospect of the arrangement working and being acceptable to the general run of creditors, with good faith and creditor support as key factors. None of the objecting creditors disputed that the procedural requirements were met.

On good faith, the court found a pattern of highly suspect asset transactions. The company had sold part of its interest in a US$35.03m claim against Cockett Marine Oil (Asia) Pte Ltd to Seroja Resources for US$4m, while under creditor pressure and without a competitive process; the written agreement exhibited was dated 11 December 2025, months after the money changed hands. The Tuas property was put under option to the same buyer, whose deposit the company said it had spent on operating expenses, and UOB learned of the sale only from the application. A subsidiary, World Properties, was sold to a company owned by the same person with no evidence of the consideration, and then appeared as a creditor. A default judgment against Surge V Ltd and receivables from Light Face Trading Co Ltd were left out or valued at nil in the liquidation analysis. The company said the money received had gone on operating expenses, but its own accounts could not explain that.

On creditor support, there was little evidence of any attempt to engage most creditors, and the claim that support could be canvassed only after a moratorium was circular. The disputes over the Olea and PETCO debts had an opportunistic feel, since the company had earlier proposed repayment plans. The supporting creditors all had historical or present links to the company or its director, and no evidence explained how the large debt to Marin Selatan arose. The court made no finding on whether any debt was valid or any creditor related, but held that the asserted support was artificial and that later disclosure at the scheme stage could not cure the failure to meet the substantive requirements.

The High Court dismissed the moratorium application. Although the procedural requirements were satisfied, the company had not shown good faith or sufficient creditor support. UOB's application in SUM 3633 was dismissed as moot, and consequential costs orders were made at the end of the hearing.