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.
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).
Wong Chee Chien writes a case update on when an admiralty claim trumps insolvency.
More often than not, a creditor with an admiralty claim would take steps to arrest a ship or vessel of the debtor, for the purposes of selling it so that the proceeds of sale will be held as pre-judgment security for the creditor.
However, if the debtor subsequently goes into liquidation, what happens to the proceeds of sale from the arrested vessel? Should the proceeds be paid to the creditor, or should they be distributed to all unsecured creditors pari passu? These issues were dealt with by the High Court in Dan Bunkering (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel “PDZ Mewah” & Anor (see grounds of judgment dated 9 August 2021).
Although this decision deals with several issues, this case update focuses on the question of whether the creditor’s admiralty claim trumps the insolvency regime of pari passu distribution among unsecured creditors. Continue reading
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.
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.
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.
