Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COMPANIES AND CORPORATION – JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT – COURT APPROVAL

In brief 

  •  COVID-19 infections in Malaysia are on the rise as we begin a new year. Due to a lack of options, the Malaysian government has reinstated the Movement Control Order (MCO), which prohibits a number of industries from operating. The MCO will almost surely push the economy into reverse shortly after it emerges from recession, putting even greater strain on struggling businesses. We should expect to see more corporations use corporate restructuring tools like Judicial Management, Corporate Voluntary Arrangements, and Schemes of Arrangement to salvage their failing businesses as a matter of necessity in these difficult circumstances.

Q. So what is an overview of judicial management? 

A. When a corporation becomes insolvent, Malaysia has historically resorted to liquidation or winding-up processes. The Companies Act 2016 (the Act) has incorporated several restructuring tools, including judicial management as an alternative to liquidations, into Malaysia’s insolvency environment. 

Who can apply?

  •  A company, its directors, a creditor, including any “contingent or potential creditor,” or all or any of those parties, jointly or separately, may file a judicial management application under Section 405 of the Act.

Example: The court decided that the party claiming to be a creditor has standing to petition for judicial management in the matter of Spacious Glory Sdn Bhd v Coconut Three sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 1188. The term ‘contingent or prospective creditor,’ according to the Court, refers to a situation in which the corporation may be exposed to a current responsibility based on the occurrence of a future event or at a future event. The term ‘creditor’ must refer to anyone who has a financial claim against the company. On the balance of probability, the applicant had established that he was a creditor. 

What tests are required to be completed? 

  •  The Court may make a judicial management order under S.405(1) of the Act if the court is satisfied that the company is or will be unable to pay its obligations when the court is satisfied that the company is or will be unable to pay its debts. 
  •  Furthermore, the Court may consider that making the order would be likely to achieve at least one of the following goals: a) the company’s survival as a going concern, b) the approval of a scheme of arrangement between the company and any of the persons listed in S.366 of the Act, and c) a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets than a winding up. 
  •  However, there is an exception to the above test. S.405(5) of the Act gives the Court the authority to issue a judicial management order and appoint a judicial manager if it believes the “public interest” necessitates it, even if the applicant fails to meet the preceding criteria.

Example: In the matter of Spacious Glory Sdn Bhd v Coconut Three Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 MLJ 76, the court will now evaluate whether issuing the order is likely to achieve one or more of the objects listed in Section 405(1)(b) of the Companies Act 2016. The court next addressed the applicants’ argument that the respondent had allegedly failed to present a reasonable solution to the issues at hand, and that as a result, the respondent’s failure to hire an attorney to oppose the petition could not be dismissed. In this matter, the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the case of CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd v Wellcom Communication (NS) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] was used.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们