In the table below, we have summarised the key differences between the remedies available to distress company which is unable to pay monies to its creditors.

In part 2 of this 3-part series, Omni Bridgeway turns to Nathan Landis, an Investment Manager based in our Perth office, Shane Taylor, a Business Development Director based in our Sydney office,

Law of Undue Preference in Malaysia – Section 528(1) of the Malaysian Companies Act 2016 provides that:-

The Covid-19 outbreak has had a significant impact on Malaysian businesses in multifarious facets. The imposition of the Movement Control Order on 16 March 2020, restricted domestic and international travel, and prohibited the operation of non-essential businesses in order to curb the spread of the outbreak.

Corporate Rescue Mechanism for Companies in Distress: A Compromise Between Debtors and Creditors As an attempt to curb and contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Government of Malaysia implemented the Movement Control Order (“MCO”) which took effect from 18.03.2020. As at the date of this article, the Conditional MCO (“CMCO”) which was announced on 01.05.2020 is scheduled to end on 09.06.2020.

Janus was a pagan god worshipped by the ancient Romans before an event commenced or during transitional periods such as from war to peace. Commonly depicted with two faces pointing towards opposite directions, the two-faced god represents the past and future, opposing sides but also deceit. As this article shall explain below, the Covid-19 Act is an instrument meant to guide us on navigating this post-coronavirus age but regrettably, does not live up to all of its tales.

As business and commerce becomes increasingly cross-border in nature, it is important for businesses to have knowledge of restructuring and insolvency regimes of foreign jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asia region, given the close connection and links amongst the Southeast Asian states.

In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

テーマ： 【タイ】仲裁手続に関するクラス・アクション制度の創設 【インドネシア】Eコマース事業に関する新たな商業大臣規制の制定 【ミャンマー】 (1)： モン州における新経済特区の開発計画の公表 (2)： 最近の商業省の動き 【マレーシア】COVID-19影響軽減のための暫定措置法案提出 【シンガポール】倒産・リストラクチャリング・解散法の施行 【フィリピン】遠隔地からの株主総会及び取締役会への出席

MHM Asian Legal Insightsは、アジア各国における最新の法律情報をタイムリーにお届けするニュースレターです。

In the recent Federal Court case of Abdul Rashid bin Mohamad Isa v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2024] MLJU 1518, the core issue that arose in the appeal was whether the withdrawal of the Creditor’s Petition constituted a termination of the entire bankruptcy proceedings including the Bankruptcy Notice served on the Judgment Debtor

BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE