The Federal Court recently addressed the proper construction of Section 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967 in Ambank (M) Berhad v Lim Sue Beng.(1) In this appeal, the Federal Court was requested to decide on the following question of law:
In the recent decision of Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2019] CLJ 723 (“Cubic Electronics”), the apex court of Malaysia revisited the principles on forfeiture of deposits and the treatment of liquidated damages clauses in contracts.
FACTS
This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.
Covid-19: Should Malaysia adopt Specific Law?
Earlier this year, both the lower and upper houses of Malaysia’s parliament, passed the Companies Bill 2015 (“theBill”) which will harmonise Malaysia's insolvency laws and bring them more in line with modern international standards. Once the Bill comes into effect (it is currently awaiting Royal Assent), it will replace Malaysia’s existing Companies Act 1965.
On 21 November 2016, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) was tabled in Parliament. The Bill will rename the Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will have important implications, in particular to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees, once their amendments are incorporated in the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Act) and are passed and in force.
After receiving the Royal Assent on 10 May 2017, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) has finally come into force in Malaysia on 6 October 2017, marking the dawn of the new Malaysian Bankruptcy regime.
As highlighted in our previous November 2016 Client Alert, the Bill will rename the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will also have important implications, specifically to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees.
The retention of a proportion of the contractor's fee is common practice in construction contracts. The parties sometimes agree (usually in unamended industry standard building contracts) that the retention amount is held on trust by the employer in a separate bank account. But what happens if there is no such express provision and the employer becomes insolvent?