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
We will cover strategy and insight from the perspective of an insolvency practitioner and legal practitioner. Companies can consider the options to restructure its debts, maintain a good financial position, and emerge stronger in the COVID-19 environment.
Registration is free and you can register here. Seats are limited.
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.
Qualified persons can now apply to be licensed as liquidators, or also known as insolvency practitioners, in Malaysia. This allows for the licence holder to take on appointments as: (i) liquidator; (ii) receiver or receiver and manager; (iii) judicial manager; and (iv) a nominee in a corporate voluntary arrangement.
The Accountant General of Malaysia recently issued its Guidelines for Qualification as Liquidator under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) dated 21 January 2020 (only available in the Malay language). This now allows for qualified persons to apply for a liquidator licence under the CA 2016.
I write about the past qualification route for liquidators under the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965) and this new qualification regime under the CA 2016. Continue reading
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.
For those involved in the restructuring and insolvency field, I thought it would be useful to set out all the relevant provisions, subsidiary legislation and documents for the corporate rescue mechanism in Malaysia. Corporate rescue under the Companies Act 2016 is corporate voluntary arrangement and judicial management.