Case Update: High Court Finds that Listed Companies Cannot Apply for Judicial Management

The High Court in the judicial management application of Re Scomi Group Bhd decided that public listed companies cannot apply for judicial management. Hence, Scomi Group Bhd’s judicial management application was dismissed.

I have only had sight of the brief grounds of decision and will only make some short points below. I may write a more detailed case update if the full grounds of judgment are issued.

Continue reading

Case Update: Extensions to Judicial Management Order Set Aside

In the matter involving Macro Resources Sdn Bhd, the Shah Alam High Court has set aside the extensions of the judicial management order made beyond the period of the initial 12 months. This decision appears to confirm that a judicial management order in Malaysia can only be made for the initial 6 months and with a single extension of 6 months only (i.e. a maximum period of 12 months).

Continue reading

Judicial Management Trends After Three Years: Part 3

Lee Shih and Peyton Teo complete this three-part series on key trends in judicial management in Malaysia. 

We complete the final part on the trilogy on trends in judicial management (JM) cases in Malaysia. This article covers the making of the JM Order, the opposition to the judicial manager candidate, and issues post the JM Order.

You can also read Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

Continue reading

Judicial Management Trends After Three Years: Part 2

Lee Shih and Peyton Teo continue with key trends in judicial management in Malaysia. 

We continue with Part 2 of a three-part series on the key trends in judicial management (JM) cases in Malaysia.

In Part 1, we had covered the reported cases on JM, the debtor and creditor applicants for JM, a Labuan company applying for JM, public listed companies, and the need for full and frank disclosure.

We continue with other issues arising from Malaysia’s JM cases.

Continue reading

Judicial Management Trends After Three Years: Part 1

Lee Shih and Peyton Teo summarise some key trends in judicial management in Malaysia. 


Judicial management (JM) is part of Malaysia’s corporate rescue mechanisms that came into force on 1 March 2018. Three years on, we set out the JM trends in our three-parter series of articles.

JM is a court-supervised rescue mechanism aimed at rehabilitating financially distressed companies. A court-appointed insolvency practitioner is empowered to manage the distressed company’s affairs, business and property. This insolvency practitioner is known as a judicial manager.

Once appointed, the judicial manager would prepare and table a statement of proposal for the creditors to vote on. The purpose of this is to either resuscitate the company and to continue as a going concern or alternatively, work towards a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets than in a winding up for the benefit of its creditors.

The filing of a JM application triggers an automatic moratorium on all legal proceedings against the company. This gives breathing space to a financially distressed company to focus on its restructuring efforts to pivot back towards financial viability.

Continue reading

Case Update: First Unfair Prejudice Claim against Singapore Judicial Managers

The Singapore High Court decision in Re HTL International Holdings Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 86 dealt with an unfair prejudice claim made against judicial managers. The decision confirms the high threshold to show the decision of the judicial managers was plainly wrong, unfair or perverse. This decision is very persuasive authority for Malaysia judicial management law. Continue reading