Case Update: A Second Judicial Management Order – Extending JM Past 12 Months

The High Court in Syed Ibrahim & Co v Trans Fame Offshore Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1380 (grounds of judgment dated 16 June 2022) involved the Court granting a second judicial management order. In effect, this allowed for the company to be under judicial management even past the initial 12-month period of the first judicial management order.

Continue reading

Scomi Group Berhad Revives Its Judicial Management Moratorium

On 16 December 2021, Scomi Group Berhad (Scomi) made a stock exchange announcement that the Court of Appeal granted an interim preservation order to prevent legal proceedings against Scomi. In effect, Scomi seems to have obtained a moratorium against all legal proceedings despite the dismissal of its earlier judicial management application. There are some interesting issues that arise from this development. Continue reading

Ex Parte Appointment of Interim Judicial Manager over Khee San Food Industries

On 19 November 2021, The Edge reported that the candy manufacturer, Khee San Food Industries Sdn Bhd (KSFI), has been placed under interim judicial management. KSFI is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the public-listed Khee San Bhd.

On 17 November 2021, the Court made an ex parte Order to appoint an interim judicial manager, Datuk Adam Primus Varghese Abdullah of Messrs ADAMPRIMUS, over KSFI. The interim judicial management of KSFI  in turn resulted in Khee San Bhd triggering Practice Note 17 (PN17). PN17 is essentially the financial distress criteria set by Bursa Malaysia Securities. KSFI’s assets account for over half of the total assets of Khee San on a consolidated basis.

I believe this is the first time a financial institution creditor has applied to place the debtor company under judicial management. I set out some of the guiding legal principles and the facts of this case.

Continue reading

Case Update: Not Mandatory for Proposed Judicial Manager’s Affidavit

The High Court in Re Federal Power Sdn Bhd (grounds of judgment dated 11 October 2021) granted a judicial management order over a high voltage cable manufacturing company. The Court dealt with the issue of whether the proposed judicial manager candidate must affirm an affidavit in support of the application or not.

Continue reading

Case Update: Court of Appeal Finds Unsecured Creditors Can Oppose Judicial Management Application


The Court of Appeal in the appeal involving Million Westlink Sdn Bhd (see the notes of proceedings of 21 July 2020 in the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. B-02(IM)-1590-08/2019) has confirmed that unsecured creditors have the right to be heard and to oppose the making of a judicial management order. The full grounds of judgment are not out yet.

This now overturns the earlier High Court decision in Million Westlink Sdn Bhd v Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Ors [2019] MLJU 1721. The outcome of this Court of Appeal decision also appears to be similar to the High Court decision in Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd (which I wrote about here).

When a company applies for judicial management, the company would be near insolvent. The company needs rescuing and an orderly dealing with its creditors. Hence, this Court of Appeal decision is important in clarifying that unsecured creditors have a right to appear and, if necessary, to oppose the making of the judicial management order.

Case Update: Unsecured Creditors Can Intervene in a Judicial Management Application

The High Court in its grounds of judgment dated 10 June 2020 in Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd v Unique Mix Sdn Bhd held that unsecured creditors can intervene in a judicial management application. The unsecured creditors’ views can then be heard in opposing the making of the judicial management order. This is an important decision clarifying this often argued point.

Continue reading