The following article was published by Singapore bunker publication Manifold Times on 15 April 2330 hrs (Singapore time).
The Court of First Instance, the lower court of the High Court of Hong Kong, on Thursday (11 April) issued a bankruptcy order against Dr Sit Kwong Lam, Chairman of Hong Kong-listed Brightoil Petroleum Holdings, according to a legal document seen by Manifold Times.
Petrolimex Singapore presented a bankruptcy petition at the Hong Kong court against Dr Sit when he could not pay a debt totalling over US $30 million (exact: US $30,253,600) under a personal guarantee with a deadline of 30 August 2018.
“There was no application by the Debtor to set aside the statutory demand. There is no issue raised as to service,” said the document.
Brightoil Singapore had difficulty paying goods from Petrolimex Singapore under two invoices dated 23 April 2018.
As such, Dr Sit undertook a personal guarantee in favour of Petrolimex Singapore by confirming payment of the two invoices by 10 July 2018.
Brightoil Singapore, however, failed to make payment of the invoices and on 12 July 2018 entered into an arrangement for payment to be broken down into four portions between 10 August 2018 and 9 November 2018.
“Other than the payment of US$100,000 to the Petitioner, Brightoil Singapore has failed to discharge its payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement,” notes the document.
Lawyers representing Dr Sit opposed the bankruptcy petition on three grounds:
Peter Ng, Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court rejected all three grounds.
“There shall be a usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor Mr Sit Kwong Lam and an order nisi that costs of the Petition, including all costs reserved, if any, be to the Petitioner,” he concluded in the judgement.
The full legal judgement can be viewed in its entirety here.
A chronologically organised list of articles concerning Brightoil’s potential debt reorganization is below:
Related: Brightoil aggregate debt has reached approximately $1.9 billion, it updates
Related: Brightoil creditor claims amount to US $250 million, potential debt reorganisation
Related: Brightoil to defend against winding up petition at Hong Kong court
Related: Singapore: Brightoil to apply for six-month moratorium order at High Court
Related: Brightoil oilfield project secures USD $700 million CNOOC funding
Related: Brightoil: Plans to sell Zhoushan oil storage terminal, 15 vessels
Related: Shell to offload crude oil cargo from arrested “Brightoil Lion” tanker
Related: Brightoil VLCC and Aframax tanker arrested at Singapore port
Related: Singapore: Players to get fuel oil cargoes back from Brightoil bunker tankers
Related: Singapore: Petrolimex v Brightoil case progresses to Pre Trial Conference
Related: Singapore: Brightoil bunker creditor list growing with new firms
Related: Singapore: Petrolimex owed over USD $30 million by Brightoil
Related: Brightoil signals return to the shipping sector, starts reorganisation of debt
Related: Singapore: Brightoil bunker tanker fleet placed under Sheriff’s arrest
Related: Singapore: Toyota Tsusho Corporation seeking $21 million from Brightoil
Related: Qatar National Bank seeks USD $21.59 million debt from Brightoil
Published: 15 April, 2019
‘We are happy to sit down with interested parties to discuss this opportunity, and share more details of our business regarding STS transhipment and storage with potential clients upon request,’ states Managing Director.
Top three positive movers in 2021 were Hong Lam Fuels Pte Ltd (+14); Sirius Marine Pte Ltd (+12); and TFG Marine (+11); according to the latest data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.
Webinar will offer delegates insights on the prevention of operational issues when using VLSFOs, along with an update on biofuels and bunker fuel quality trends for 2021 and its forecast for the current year.
Heating VLSFOs to prevent cold flow issues causes issues related to distillate ageing, and there is a gentle balance to be maintained when handling the product.
Research into n-paraffin distribution of VLSFOs has shown that they not only differ from MGO, but significantly differ from each other as well, states bulletin.
Bunker Holding and Dan-Bunkering have decided not to appeal the city court ruling in the case where the companies were on trial for breaching EU sanctions against Syria, states USTC.