This article compares reforms to directors’ liability for insolvent trading in Singapore and in Australia. The authors analyse the law in these two countries because they are important Asia-Pacific trading partners and their laws were originally largely the same – Singapore’s law on insolvent trading reflected the law in Australia from the 1960s. However, the law in the two countries has now diverged substantially. The comparison of these two countries therefore represents an interesting case study in how countries differ in their approaches to balancing the competing interests evident in laws that impose personal liability on company directors for insolvent trading. Reform of the prohibition against insolvent trading was a focus of Australia’s insolvency law reforms in 2017 which led to the introduction of a safe harbour for directors from liability. Singapore’s omnibus insolvency law reforms of 2018-19 include amendments to update Singapore’s fraudulent and insolvent trading provisions by introducing a concept of ‘wrongful trading’. The article finds that there are some areas of convergence between these two jurisdictions when it comes to debates about such provisions, but concludes that the different contemporary legislative histories in Australia and Singapore have affected their approaches to reform. Reformers in both jurisdictions have attempted to find an appropriate balance between protecting creditors, discouraging director misconduct and encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation; however, this comparison suggests that the weight that reformers place on creditor protection compared to the concern that excessive personal liability can make directors unduly risk-averse is influenced by their existing legislative framework and experience of those laws. Although Australia has shifted away from a strict focus on creditor protection, to give directors more opportunities to engage in restructuring, Singapore’s amendments may provide a more creditor-friendly regime.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚和新加坡的破产法改革：董事对破产交易和不当交易的责任

本文比较了新加坡和澳大利亚针对破产交易的董事责任改革。作者分析了这两个国家的法律，因为它们是亚太地区重要的贸易伙伴，而且它们的法律原本基本相同——新加坡关于破产交易的法律反映了 1960 年代澳大利亚的法律。然而，两国的法律现在已经发生了很大的分歧。因此，这两个国家的比较代表了一个有趣的案例研究，即各国在平衡竞争利益的方法上有何不同，这些利益在对公司董事因破产交易强加个人责任的法律中很明显。禁止破产交易的改革是 2017 年澳大利亚破产法改革的重点，这导致引入了董事免责的安全港。新加坡 2018-19 年综合破产法改革包括通过引入“错误交易”概念来更新新加坡欺诈和破产交易规定的修正案。文章发现，在就此类条款进行辩论时，这两个司法管辖区之间存在一些趋同，但得出的结论是，澳大利亚和新加坡不同的当代立法历史影响了他们的改革方法。两个司法管辖区的改革者都试图在保护债权人、阻止董事不当行为和鼓励创业和创新之间找到适当的平衡点；然而，这种比较表明，与过度的个人责任会使董事过度规避风险的担忧相比，改革者对债权人保护的重视受到他们现有立法框架和这些法律经验的影响。尽管澳大利亚已从严格关注债权人保护转向给予董事更多参与重组的机会，但新加坡的修正案可能会提供更利于债权人的制度。