Lee Shih and Huey Lynn write about the Singapore decision on the appointment of interim judicial managers.
The Singapore High Court in Re KS Energy Ltd and another matter SGHC 198 granted an order for the appointment of interim judicial managers (IJM) over two companies upon the application by a creditor.
This decision is useful in setting out the principles for the appointment of interim judicial managers. This decision is also persuasive for Malaysian law as Malaysia’s judicial management provisions are modelled after Singapore. Continue reading →
The High Court case of Afandi bin Hussain v Global Advanced Broadband Solutions (M) Sdn Bhd & 3 others (grounds of judgment dated 23 September 2020) dealt with the company law issue concerning resignation and appointment of directors. While the decision dealt with other facts, I only focus on the issue concerning the simultaneous resignation and appointment of a director. Continue reading →
The High Court decision of Re Biaxis (M) Sdn Bhd  MLJU 1188 (grounds of judgment dated 12 August 2020) set stringent requirements for a company to successfully apply for judicial management. These requirements may set an unnecessarily high bar for a distressed company to meet. Continue reading →
Lee Shih and Nicole Phung write about a Singapore Court of Appeal case on the Riddick undertaking and on the proposed guidelines for the breadth of Anton Piller search orders.
The Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent case of Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another SGCA 76 dealt with the prospective and retrospective release of the Riddick undertaking for disclosed documents. The Courts will undertake a multifactorial balancing exercise.
The Riddick Undertaking
The Riddick undertaking draws its name from the English case of Riddick v Thames Board Mills  QB 881. Where a party to litigation is ordered to produce documents, the discovering party is under an implied undertaking to not use the produced documents other than for pursuing the action. Therefore, the party who has been provided access to the documents cannot use the documents for any collateral or ulterior purpose.
The rationale for the Riddick undertaking is that public interest requires full and complete disclosure in the interest of justice. But, the production of documents by court order is an intrusion of privacy. This principle strikes a balance between these two interests. The court can release the Riddick undertaking if there are cogent and persuasive reasons. Continue reading →
Joyce Lim writes an update on a High Court decision on how the notice of a Board meeting need not contain the particulars of the business to be transacted at that meeting
The High Court in the recent case of Rozilawati binti Haji Basir v Nationwide Express Holdings Berhad & Ors  MLJU 1198 (see the grounds of judgment dated 18 August 2020) dealt with two issues relating to the Board meeting requirements for companies.
Lee Shih and Peyton Teo write about this recent High Court decision on whether there can be a challenge of a disputed debt against an enforced adjudication decision.
The recent High Court decision of Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd v Spring Energy Sdn Bhd (see the grounds of judgment dated 21 August 2020 of Ong Chee Kwan JC) dealt with the issue of whether an enforced adjudication decision relied upon as a debt in a statutory demand under section 466 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) is a disputed debt.
Further, the Court also looked at whether a cross-claim or counterclaim for a sum equal to or more than the debt. That can justify the grant of an injunction to restrain a presentation of a winding up petition.