In the recent case of MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v Adrian Sia Koon Leng [2023] 3 CLJ 191 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision in, among others, dismissing the Appellant’s application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement made pursuant to section 366(4) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”).

Background Facts

The High Court has recently granted Sapura Energy Bhd and its 22 subsidiaries (“Sapura Entities”) a fresh order to hold court-convened meetings with creditors within a period of three months. A restraining order was also granted for the same period. By now, the Sapura Entities would have been granted 3 restraining orders which stretches out to a total period of 15 months.

Among the measures announced by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, during his 2023 Malaysia Budget Speech on 24 February 2023 was a proposal to amend the Insolvency Act 1967 (‘the Act’) to enable bankrupts to be automatically discharged quickly.

The Finance Minister added that pending the amendment of the Act, “minor cases” involving debts of less than RM50,000 that fulfil the criteria will be immediately discharged beginning 1 March 2023.

Summary

The role of the liquidator is to realise the assets of the company and from the sale proceeds, pay off creditors of the company. If a difficulty arises in the course of his administration of the winding up, the liquidator may apply to the winding up court for directions.

It has often been said that the route of winding up a company is the remedy of last resort in a creditor’s odyssey to recover a debt owed to it. This is as not only would the granting of a winding up order have drastic repercussions for the debtor company, but there is also no guarantee that the creditor would be able to recover the full debt thereafter.

“Rather fail with honour than succeed by fraud” – Sophocles    

Introduction  

Fraud and its impact on businesses are an increasing concern. The costs of addressing the consequences of fraudulent conduct are growing exponentially and fraudulent schemes are becoming more prevalent, sophisticated and even international.  

Introduction

In the recent case of Atlas Equifin Pte Ltd v Electronic Cash and Payment Solutions (S) Pte Ltd (Andy Lim and others, non-parties) [2022] SGHC 258 (“Atlas Equifin”), the Singapore High Court had the opportunity to consider the unexplored issue of whether shareholders/ contributories have legal standing to oppose a creditor’s winding up application.

Facts

Introduction

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 ("Sequana Case") which concerns the question of the trigger point when directors must have regard to the interests of creditors ("Creditor Duty"). This case raised questions of considerable importance for Malaysian company law.

Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

Introduction

The High Court on 25 May 2022, allowed the judicial management order applications (“JM Applications”) filed by three wholly-owned subsidiaries of Jerasia Capital Berhad (“JCB”), namely Jerasia Apparel Sdn Bhd (“JASB”), Jerasia Fashion Sdn Bhd and Canteran Apparel Sdn Bhd (“CASB”) (collectively the “Applicants”).