I highlight seven of the more significant amendments. There will be welcome clarification of the effect of section 66 on the execution of what sort of documents, as well as the redemption of preference shares out of capital. But I can see issues relating to the appointment of receivers or receivers and managers after liquidation. There is a severe dilution of the ability to apply for judicial management.
#1: Section 66 to Only to Apply to Specific Types of Documents
On 20 June 2019, I will be speaking at the Companies Commission of Malaysia Training Academy (COMTRAC) session on Cessation of Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. This one-day seminar is held in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. You can still sign up for the seminar, and with the registration fee at RM500 or discounted to RM400 for licensed secretarties, and for members of MAICSA, MIA, the Malaysian Bar, MACS, MICPA, Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak.
My co-speaker is Puan Norhaslinda Salleh. She is the Head of Insolvency in the Registration Services Division, Companies Commission of Malaysia. Continue reading →
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.
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 →
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 →