Example: A obtains judgment against B and C for RM500,000. Are B and C liable to equal proportions of the judgment sum, i.e., RM250,000 each, or are they each liable for RM500,000?
This distinction between "joint liability" and "joint and several liability" was recently clarified by the Federal Court.
Brief facts
Introduction
Commercial transactions and disputes are increasingly likely to contain a cross-border element. As such, the ability of Courts to cooperate on the management of proceedings that span their respective jurisdictions will facilitate the efficient resolution of cross-border issues. In this regard, the Singapore and Malaysia Courts have demonstrated a commitment to judicial cooperation between the two countries.
Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Introduction
Without a doubt, a scheme of arrangement is a preferred corporate rescue mechanism for a company in financial distress. It allows the management of a company to retain control while carrying out an approved debt restructuring compromise or arrangement with creditors of the company. The ultimate goal is to restructure the debts of the company in a manner acceptable to at least 75% of its creditors in value so that the company can continue as a going concern.
In a relationship between a creditor and debtor, the issue of liability is always a cause of concern. This is made even more apparent when there is more than one debtor involved as the terms of liability is not necessarily clear. Among the popular issues of contention is whether the debtors’ liability is joint or joint and several. In this commentary, we will explore this artificial distinction through the recent Federal Court case of Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v. Edwin Cassian Nagappan @ Marie [2021] 1 LNS 928.
Introduction
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many companies in Malaysia to be severely affected financially. One of the major complications is having a set of problems with their creditors to the extent of being served with a winding up notice (Notice under section 466 of the Companies Act 2016, also known as the ‘Notice 466’) or worse, being slapped with a winding up petition.
In the recent decision of the Malaysian High Court in Re Top Builders Capital Bhd & Ors [2021] 10 MLJ 327("Top Builders"), Ong Chee Kwan JC examines the proof of debt exercise in a scheme of arrangement ("SOA") and the guiding principles governing the granting of leave to proceed with legal proceedings against a financially distressed company that has obtained a restraining order (moratorium) pursuant to a SOA.
On 28 July 2021, Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”) issued the Policy Document on Recovery Planning (“Policy Document”) which came into effect immediately.
The Policy Document applies to the following institutions under the Financial Services Act 2013 or the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013:
Given the current situation brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, the Malaysian economy has been badly affected with serious supply chain disruptions due to the nationwide lockdown. This has resulted in the tightening of companies’ cash flows and has given rise to an urgent need for companies to implement rescue mechanisms and restructure their businesses.