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

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us