核心要点
在Novabrite Lighting Sdn Bhd v Emrail Sdn Bhd（Balaranee Construction，介入人）[2025] 11 MLJ 275一案中，高庭明确表示，法庭不会允许欠债人以司法管理作为战术手段，来阻挠债权人执行行动，而非真诚地推进公司重整。高庭以滥用诉讼程序为由驳回司法管理申请，并认可债权人在司法管理触动自动暂缓令期间提交的清盘申请，同时作出把关令，规定日后任何新的司法管理申请均须先取得法庭许可方可提出。
此外，高庭亦强调《2016年公司法》下的法定前置条件必须被严格遵守；反复依赖自动暂缓令本身亦可能构成滥用诉讼程序，并且法院将主动干预, 即便是自行行使职权（ex proprio motu），以防司法管理机制被“武器化”对付债权人。
A. 背景事实
Balaranee Construction 是 Emrail Sdn Bhd 的无担保债权人，其债权来源于未支付的劳务费用。当Emrail 未能按约定还款后，Balaranee 发出了法定通知，并随后提呈清盘申请。
Considering Company Liquidation in Poland?
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
This article first appeared in Volume 22, Issue 6 of International Corporate Rescue.
Synopsis
In Re Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWHC 2887 (Ch), the English High Court made an administration order in relation to a Jersey-incorporated company even though its registered office was not in England which is the starting point for determining COMI and therefore the Court’s jurisdiction to make such an order.
Background
The EU Mobility Directive (2019/2121 (EU), the Directive) has introduced a harmonised legal framework for cross-border conversions (or redomiciliations), mergers, and demergers within the EU and EEA — offering global companies new flexibility to reshape their European operations. Please see our legal update of December 2022 as well as any of our subsequent country specific insights.
Key Takeaways