Malaysia’s Cross-Border Insolvency Bill Embraces the UNCITRAL Model Law

Parliament has now tabled Malaysia’s long-awaited Cross Border Insolvency Bill 2025, marking a landmark step in the country’s insolvency reform.

With this move, Malaysia signals its adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) and joins more than 60 jurisdictions in implementing a harmonised framework for managing cross-border restructuring and insolvency proceedings.

I had earlier co-written an article on the case for Malaysia’s adoption of the Model Law.

This article outlines 10 key features of the Bill and its expected impact on Malaysia’s insolvency landscape. Continue reading

Case Update: Court Allows KNM to Convene Scheme Meeting but Rejects Restraining Order

In the latest chapter of KNM Group’s high-stakes restructuring, the High Court has allowed the company to proceed with its fifth scheme of arrangement proposal. However, the Court declined to grant a restraining order, which would have given KNM a moratorium on legal proceedings filed against it.

This is one of the first reported decisions on the amended scheme of arrangement provisions. The decision deals with repeat restructuring attempts, related-party creditor classification concerns, and the ‘VC George Test’ for the grant of restraining orders.

I briefly analyse the decision of Judicial Commissioner Tuan Saheran Suhendran in his Grounds of Judgment dated 12 March 2025. I had earlier set out the legal framework for the amended scheme of arrangement and restraining order.
Continue reading

BFM Radio Interview on Cross-Border Insolvency

 

On 24 April 2025, I spoke on the BFM radio station to speak on recent developments in the field of insolvency. First, with Malaysia’s intention to adopt the UNICTRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency through the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill. Second, the challenges of recovering overseas assets. Third, the rise of voluntary bankruptcies in Malaysia.

Set out below is an extract of one of the questions and my answer.

Why is it important for Malaysia to have specific laws on cross-border insolvency, especially on the business front?

Right now, Malaysia doesn’t have clear laws to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings. That’s a gap. But with the proposed Cross-Border Insolvency Bill, I believe it offers a strong economic selling point.

Malaysia is already open for business — we welcome foreign investment, and we make it easy to set up operations. But we also need to give foreign companies confidence that if they undertake a foreign restructuring or foreign insolvency, their Malaysian assets are protected and can be dealt with smoothly for repayment of debts.

This means certainty — certainty to operate here, even during foreign distress, and certainty that property can be repatriated or recovered efficiently.

Think of it this way — Malaysia welcomes foreign companies through special economic zones and secondary listings on Bursa Malaysia. If the company undergoes a restructuring or a liquidation, the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill ensures there’s a clear, predictable path to wind things down.

You can listen to the full 10-minute podcast on the BFM website.

Case for Malaysia to adopt Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

On 14 April 2025, The Edge Malaysia published our piece on why Malaysia should adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. I reproduce the article below. Continue reading

Case Update: Federal Court Rules on Related Party Creditors in Scheme of Arrangement

The Federal Court in MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v Adrian Sia Koon Leng has ruled on the issue of the votes of related-party creditors in a scheme of arrangement. This has an impact on the classification of related-party creditors for schemes of arrangement in Malaysia.

With the Federal Court’s 2-1 split decision, I share the majority judgment  and the dissenting minority judgment.

Summary of the Decision and Significance
Majority Grounds by: Nordin Hassan FCJ

The scheme company, MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd (MDSA), had undertaken a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts of more than RM370 million.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal refused the sanction of MDSA’s scheme of arrangement.

The scheme of arrangement only had a single class of unsecured creditors. The High Court and Court of Appeal upheld the objection that related party creditors should not have been in the same class as the other unsecured creditors.

Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was allowed for 10 questions of law.

The Federal Court’s majority decision upheld the objection based on the related party creditors voting in the same class.

The Federal Court’s majority decision answered two questions of law as follows:

1. Whether the votes of related-party creditors are to be treated differently from the votes of other creditors in the same class in a scheme of arrangement.

[Answer: Yes]

 

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, whether the votes of related-party creditors in a scheme of arrangement should be discounted or not be counted altogether.

[Answer: Yes]

 

Continue reading

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