On 26 and 27 October 2020, I spoke at the two-day webinar organised by the Companies Commission of Malaysia Training Academy. I was joined by Norhaslinda Salleh of the Companies Commission of Malaysia, Khoo Poh Poh of Ernst & Young and Jimmy Ng of Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff.
We covered a range of restructuring and insolvency topics. There were some interesting facts shared as well. Continue reading →
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 →
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.
Joyce Lim writes on a recent High Court decision on the oppression remedy in quasi-partnerships. Further, the decision confirms that oppression can arise from breaches of a shareholders’ agreement.
The High Court in the recent case of ISM Sendirian Berhad v Queensway Nominees (Asing) Sdn Bhd & Ors and other suits  MLJU 388 dealt with an oppression claim by a minority shareholder in quasi-partnerships (also known as Ebrahimi-type companies).