The Court of Appeal in Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 49 has decided that a petitioner can issue a statutory demand for winding up based on a mere adjudication decision. There is no requirement to first enforce the adjudication decision as a court judgment before issuing such a winding up notice.
The Federal Court in grounds of judgment dated 22 November 2018 in the SKS Foam decision confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside a perfected winding up Order in certain limited instances.
The Court is able to exercise its jurisdiction under the Federal Court case of Badiaddin to set aside its own Order where the defect is of such a serious nature that there is a need to set aside the Order in the interests of justice. Continue reading
The High Court in its Grounds of Judgment dated 20 June 2018 in Abdul Rahman bin Ismail v Pembangunan Qualicare Sdn Bhd (Penang High Court Winding Up Petition No. 28-6-01/2013) made an interesting observation when there are competing nominees to be appointed as liquidator in a court winding up.
The High Court raised the possibility of a need for a mini trial in order to test the suitability of the two competing liquidator nominees. Continue reading
I set out five tips on how I regularly check the Bursa Malaysia (stock exchange) Company Announcements page to gain legal and commercial awareness. This note is based on an email I sent out to my team members.
In a Media Release on 23 May 2018, Malaysia’s Ministry of Finance announced that it had met with 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The directors confirmed that 1MDB was insolvent and was unable to pay its debts. 1MDB’s debts may be in the region of RM42 billion. This figure is based on the declassified Auditor General Report issued in 2015.
With this tremendous amount of debt, I touch on one aspect of directors’ liabilities. The directors and other officers of 1MDB, when allowing 1MDB to take on so much debt, can be held personally liable for these debts. Continue reading
