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: 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.

Case Update: Receivers Can Seek For Continuation of Essential Supplies

The Court of Appeal in Boulevard Plaza Sdn Bhd v Gas District Cooling (Putrajaya) Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 1965 allowed the receiver and manager’s application to compel a chilled water provider to continue with the supply of chilled water to the company under receivership. This is a far-reaching ability to compel the continuation of certain essential supplies. This decision would also apply to the situation of a judicial manager seeking for the continuation of such supplies.

Continue reading

UK’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill: Possible Reforms for Malaysia’s Restructuring Laws

In response to COVID-19, the UK has fast-tracked its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the PDF copy of the Bill is here and with helpful Explanatory Notes). The overarching objective of this Bill is to provide businesses with the breathing space they need to continue trading during this difficult time and to avoid insolvency. I set out seven of the key measures that UK is introducing and the possible reforms that Malaysia can adopt.

Continue reading