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.
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.
The Court of Appeal in the Wellcom Communications case has decided on certain significant issues relating to a judicial management application (see the grounds of judgment dated 13 February 2019). This is Malaysia’s first appellate decision relating to judicial management.
In summary, upon the filing of a judicial management application, an automatic moratorium applies. This will stay all legal proceedings from continuing or from being commenced against the applicant company. The Court of Appeal has held that once the judicial management application is dismissed, there cannot be a grant of any stay order to stay the dismissal of the application in order to revive the moratorium effect. Continue reading →
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.
The Malaysia Insolvency Conference 2018 will be held this Thursday 22 November 2018. I am organising the case study session where it will feature a hypothetical judicial management case study. It is still not too late to sign up for the conference.
There is a strong lineup of speakers: The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Puan Wong Chee Lin, Melisa Tai of Adnan Sundra & Low, and Koo Yin Soon of Shearn Delamore & Co. The two speakers will take on the role of opposing counsel for and against a judicial management application. The Judicial Commissioner will then hear arguments, pose questions and then decide on the application. The counsel have already prepared their skeletal submissions and filed it before the Judicial Commissioner.
As a sneak preview, here are the background facts for this case study of the fictional Photon Bhd and how the company applies for judicial management. Will the judicial management application succeed? Will Photon Bhd rise again? Continue reading →
Judicial management orders were granted ex parte for two related companies, Leadmont Development Sdn Bhd (“Leadmont”) and its subsidiary Sierra Delima Sdn Bhd (“Sierra Delima”). The judicial management orders were to facilitate the rehabilitation of these two companies. The companies wanted to successfully complete their project, the Selayang StarCity Project. A secured creditor of the companies, Infra Segi Sdn Bhd (“Infra Segi”), intervened after the grant of the judicial management orders to set aside the orders.
The decision is important for setting out the background and statutory framework of the judicial management provisions in Malaysia. It spells out the test for the grant of a judicial management order. The Court ultimately exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the earlier judicial management orders. Continue reading →