Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

BANKRUPTCY – ADJUDICATION AND RECEIVING ORDERS – APPEAL AGAINST ANNULMENT

In brief

  •  Being declared bankrupt can have a financial and social impact on one’s life. With that stated, it is critical that the legislation guarantees that bankrupts and judgement debtors facing bankruptcy have enough safeguards and remedy. Some of the options available to a bankrupt include appealing the bankruptcy order, petitioning the court for a discharge order, petitioning the court to annul his or her bankruptcy, and so on. 
  •  Though most people are afraid of bankruptcy, some people believe that struggling businessmen or individuals should consider declaring bankruptcy since it shields them from creditors and allows them to get a fresh start financially.

How can one get out of a bankruptcy?

  • A bankrupt can exit bankruptcy by discharge or annulment. Because of the consequence, annulment is always the preferred approach to terminate one’s bankruptcy if it is feasible. When an adjudication order or a bankruptcy order is cancelled, the bankrupt is placed in the same situation as if no adjudication had occurred. The bankruptcy is completely erased, as if the debtor had never been insolvent. 

What conditions must the bankrupt meet in order to submit a motion to annul the adjudication order?

  •  First and foremost, 1) the bankrupt must demonstrate that the debt has been entirely satisfied, or 2) the order should not have been given. Furthermore, 3) if he has been declared bankrupt in Singapore, the distribution of his estate and effects among his creditors should take place there. In other words, if one is declared bankrupt in another country, such as the United Kingdom, the authorities from that nation are only permitted to take property situated in that country, whereas Malaysia authorities are not permitted to touch your estates or assets located in that country.  Moving forward, the adjudication order or bankruptcy order may be revoked if the bankrupt’s application for a composition or plan of arrangement is accepted by his creditors and approved by the court at the creditors’ meeting.

What options are available if bankruptcy is released in a way of discharge?

  • There are three ways a bankrupt can be discharged following the 2017 change to the Act, which took effect on October 6, 2017. To begin, a bankrupt can be discharged by a court order under S.33(3) of Insolvency Act 1967, by the Director General of Insolvency (DGI) under section 33A of Bankruptcy Act 1967, or by an automatic discharge under section 33C of Bankruptcy Act 1967
  •  Furthermore, each choice for the method of discharge described above has particular requirements that must be met in order for the bankruptcy to be discharged. If these requirements are satisfied, a bankrupt will be freed from bankruptcy three years after the date of submission of his statement of affairs.

Conclusion

  •  With the introduction of the new method of discharge, which was thankfully introduced into our Malaysian bankruptcy legislation prior to the pandemic, debtors and bankrupts should understand that bankruptcy is not the end of the world, and that bankruptcy may be an effective path to a fresh financial start.

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us