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.
The High Court in the case of Re Sentoria Bina Sdn Bhd(grounds of judgment dated 9 July 2021) dealt with scheme of arrangement issues. First, that a restraining order could extend to the corporate guarantor of the applicant’s company. Second, the case dealt with the principles for sanction of a scheme of arrangement.
Today was the second day of the Malaysia Insolvency Conference 2021. I had a very engaging session with my fellow speakers, Alex Chiang of Rodgers Reidy and Eddie Goh of Deloitte. The session was titled Lessons from Recent Landmark Cases. The session was a blend of practical issues and legal changes from recent court decisions.
At the session, I promised to set out a summary of the cases and legal principles I referred to. I set them out here.
The Court of Appeal in Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad v Mohd Afrizan bin Husain (grounds of judgment dated 2 July 2021) ruled that once a winding up order was made against a public listed company, Bursa Malaysia must de-list that company from the stock exchange.
The case dealt with interesting issues between the interplay of a liquidator’s role under the Companies Act and where the liquidated company is also subject to Bursa Malaysia’s Listing Requirement.
The Federal Court has granted leave to appeal against this Court of Appeal decision.
The barrister chambers of 4 New Square have obtained a persons unknown injunction against the unknown hackers who engaged in a cyber-attack on them on 12 June 2021. See this article from the UK Law Society Gazette.
It seems that these unknown hackers managed to hack into the computer system. It may be a case where data was stolen and the hackers are threatening to release the stolen data. Continue reading →