Lee Shih

Winding Up vs Arbitration: No to Stay but Court has Discretion to Dismiss the Winding Up

Lee Shih1 Comment

The Malaysian Courts continue to tackle the issue of the effect of an arbitration agreement on the litigant’s ability to present a winding up petition based on a debt. This is in the context of a purported debt arising from a contract containing the arbitration clause. There have been conflicting High Court decisions on this point, especially on the issue of whether the Court can stay the winding up pursuant to section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005).

The recent High Court decision in Awangsa Bina Sdn Bhd v Mayland Avenue Sdn Bhd (Grounds of Judgment dated 2 May 2019) decided that it would not stay the winding up proceedings under the AA 2005. Nonetheless, the Court agreed with the authorities from the UK, Singapore and Hong Kong to apply the test of whether there is a prima facie dispute of the debt. Since there was, the winding up petition was dismissed. The decision provides a useful summary of the cases in Malaysia and other jurisdictions. Continue reading →

Asset Recovery Asia Conference 2019: How to Choose the Right Legal Route with Limited Information

Lee ShihLeave a comment

On 14 May 2019, I spoke at the Asset Recovery Asia Conference in Singapore. It was organised by Knect365 as part of its Asset Recovery series. I thoroughly enjoyed attending the conference, hearing from other fraud and asset recovery specialists, and meeting new friends.

I shared a panel with other lawyers from different jurisdictions, an investigator and a litigation funder to share our perspectives. The session was on how victims of fraud have to make a decision early on, without all the facts, about which recovery route to go down – litigation or insolvency proceedings. These strategic decisions can have implications on the remainder of the case.  I set out below some of the views I shared on the panel session. Continue reading →

Case Update: High Court Decides on Restraining Order Requirements under Companies Act 2016

Lee ShihLeave a comment

I had earlier written about a High Court decision that set aside a restraining order. The Court held that the applicant must meet the statutory pre-conditions for the grant of a restraining order in a scheme of arrangement from the very initial application stage.

The High Court has now issued its grounds of judgment dated 3 May 2019 in the case involving Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad and PBJV Group Sdn Bhd.

 

 

 

Upcoming Book: Law and Practice of Corporate Insolvency in Malaysia

Lee ShihLeave a comment

Sweet & Maxwell is publishing an upcoming book: Law and Practice of Corporate Insolvency in Malaysia. It will be the first dedicated text in Malaysia covering restructuring and insolvency law. Each chapter is written by a lawyer, an insolvency practitioner or a combination of both. The book should be a good blend of the latest legal developments and practical tips.

The book will cover all the areas of winding up, receivership, schemes of arrangement, corporate voluntary arrangement and judicial management. Continue reading →

Case Update: Two-Year Time Limit to Obtain Court Order to Reverse Dissolution of Company

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The High Court decision in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia and another (Grounds of Judgment dated 12 February 2019) held that there is a strict two-year time limit from the date of dissolution to obtain the Court Order to reverse the dissolution of a company. It is not enough to file the court application within that two-year period from dissolution.

This is in the context of interpreting section 535(1) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) (which is identical to the previous section 307(1) of the Companies Act 1965). This section states that “where a company has been dissolved, the Court may, at any time within two years after the date of the dissolution … make an order … declaring the dissolution to have been void.” Continue reading →

Restraining Order under a Scheme of Arrangement Must Satisfy Pre-Conditions from the Start

Lee Shih1 Comment

An applicant must meet the statutory pre-conditions for the grant of a moratorium (otherwise known as a restraining order) under Malaysia’s scheme of arrangement even at the initial application stage. This was decided in a recent High Court decision dated 22 April 2019. The Court set aside the initial grant of the restraining order as the applicant companies had not satisfied the pre-conditions at the time of the application. I have since written the case commentary on this decision.

To my knowledge, this is also the first decision on this issue under the new section 368(2) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). There have been conflicting High Court decisions on this issue when interpreting the predecessor section 176(10A) of the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965). The full grounds of judgment have not been issued yet.

Continue reading →