Imagine operating a company, only to find without any warning that the company’s bank accounts have been blocked. The immediate consequence is one of acute disruption and uncertainty. You learn that a winding-up petition has been filed against the company, triggering restrictions that effectively prevent it from carrying out ordinary financial transactions. At that point, a pressing question arises: how is the business expected to continue operating under such constraints?

Key Takeaway

On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton that motions to vacate void judgments under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed within a “reasonable time.” The longstanding assumption in most circuits—that void judgments could be challenged without any time limit—is gone. Corporate defendants should act promptly upon learning of any judgment entered against them.

Rule 60: The Escape Hatch from Final Judgments

It is not uncommon for a claimant who has issued a professional negligence claim to realise, once limitation has expired, that he has sued the wrong defendant. One potential escape route for claimants in this predicament was shut down on Friday 6 February 2026 by the Court of Appeal in the conjoined appeals in Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50. 

Introduction

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Victor Saw Seng Kee (as joint liquidator of London Biscuits Bhd (in liquidation)) v Wong Weng Foo & Co & Anor and other appeals [2026] 2 MLJ 23 is a definitive judgment and an important authority for insolvency practice in Malaysia.