Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

INSOLVENCY ACT 1967 – A FRESH FINANCIAL START: THE EVOLUTION OF BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS IN MALAYSIA’S INSOLVENCY ACT

The main intent of the recent amendment to Insolvency Act which came into force on 6.10.2023 is to provide individuals with a chance for a new beginning. Everyone can encounter financial difficulties and these updated provisions aim to ensure that a person facing bankruptcy is not perpetually weighed down by prior financial missteps or unexpected hurdles.

Introduction

  • Bankruptcy in Malaysia is governed by the Insolvency Act 1967 which recent amendment has come into force on 6.10.2023.
  • A person can be made a bankruptcy by a court order if they are unable to pay their debts of RM100,000.00 and above.
  • There are several ways a bankruptcy may be discharged as follows:
  • Annulment;
  • Application to court;
  • Discharge by Director General of Insolvency (“DGI”); and
  • Completion of Bankruptcy Duration of 3 Years from the Date of Submission of Statement of Affairs (Automatic Discharge)

Annulment

  • Happens when the bankruptcy order should not have been made in the first place or when the debt is paid in full.

Application to Court

  • An application to court can be filed at any time after he is being adjudged bankrupt.
  • The application must be supported by a report from the DGI as to the bankrupt’s conduct and affairs.
  • When considering the application, the court will weigh between the rights of creditors to recover their debt with the bankrupt individual’s opportunity for a fresh start, taking into account the broader interest of public commercial reality.
  • Several key factors will be taken into consideration:
    • The bankrupt’s age and earnings;
    • Health conditions;
    • Length of time of the bankruptcy;
    • Reason leading to bankruptcy;
    • The proportion of debt settled;
    • Behaviour of the bankrupt;
    • Actions of the creditors; and/or
    • The count of creditors in opposition.

    Discharge through DGI

    • Starting 1.10.2003, the DGI is granted the authority to discharge when there is an application by the bankrupt.
    • This application can be submitted after a duration of 5 years after the date of the bankruptcy order.

    Completion of Bankruptcy Duration of 3 Years from the Date of Submission of Statement of Affairs (Automatic Discharge)

    • This is introduced in the Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1695) which came into force on 6.10.2023.
    • A bankrupt is automatically discharge on the expiration of 3 years from the date of the submission of the Statement of Affairs if the bankrupt has complied with all obligations and there is no objection from the creditors.
    • Application for objection by the creditor(s) must be filed in the court.

    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 »
    zh_TWZH
    × 联系我们