Judicial Management Statistics in Malaysia

On 26 and 27 October 2020, I spoke at the two-day webinar organised by the Companies Commission of Malaysia Training Academy. I was joined by Norhaslinda Salleh of the Companies Commission of Malaysia, Khoo Poh Poh of Ernst & Young and Jimmy Ng of Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff.

We covered a range of restructuring and insolvency topics. There were some interesting facts shared as well. Continue reading

Case Update: The Interim Judicial Manager to Protect Assets in Jeopardy

Lee Shih and Huey Lynn write about the Singapore decision on the appointment of interim judicial managers.

The Singapore High Court in Re KS Energy Ltd and another matter [2020] SGHC 198 granted an order for the appointment of interim judicial managers (IJM) over two companies upon the application by a creditor.

This decision is useful in setting out the principles for the appointment of interim judicial managers. This decision is also persuasive for Malaysian law as Malaysia’s judicial management provisions are modelled after Singapore. Continue reading

Case Update: Biaxis Decision – Stringent Requirements for a Judicial Management Application

The High Court decision of Re Biaxis (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 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

Case Update: Fraudulent Trading Rebooted

The High Court in the Sulaiman & Taye decision (see the grounds of judgment dated 8 July 2020 of Ong Chee Kwan JC) deals with very significant issues in relation to fraudulent trading. Fraudulent trading is where directors of a company have to bear personal liability for the debts of a company in winding up. This is because the directors carried on the business of the company with the intent to defraud its creditors. In particular, whether the delinquent directors bearing personal liability then has to pay directly to the aggrieved applicant or to pay into the wound up company’s assets for the general benefit of all the creditors. 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.

PEMUDAH Webinar – Post Covid-19: Options for Companies to Emerge Stronger

On Thursday 23 July 2020 at 2.30pm, I will be moderating this webinar on restructuring and corporate rescue. The webinar is organised by PEMUDAH, Malaysia’s Special Task Force to Facilitate Business.

I will be joined by the speakers PohPoh Khoo of Ernst & Young and Kumar Kanagasingam of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill .

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.