The Path to Judicial Management in Malaysia is Paved with Obstacles: Lessons from Singapore and the United Kingdom

Q3 Social Sciences
Thim Wai Chen, Ruzita Azmi, R. Abdul-Rahman
{"title":"The Path to Judicial Management in Malaysia is Paved with Obstacles: Lessons from Singapore and the United Kingdom","authors":"Thim Wai Chen, Ruzita Azmi, R. Abdul-Rahman","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2024.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In embracing corporate rescue, Malaysia introduced Judicial Management (JM) into its company law framework on 1 March 2018. The mechanism was modelled on Singapore's Judicial Management, which itself was based on the United Kingdom (UK) Administration Procedure. Despite its laudable objective of facilitating the rescue of financially distressed companies, the path to JM is paved with obstacles. This article identifies some of these obstacles and examines the issues that give rise to them. At the same time, the article proposes legislative reforms, drawing on comparative laws in Singapore and the UK. For the purposes of this article, three obstacles are examined: first, the power of a secured creditor or debenture holder to veto the JM application; second, the stringent and prohibitive burden imposed on an applicant company caused by the judicial interpretation, at times conflicting, of the provisions governing the application of a JM order; and third, the higher threshold imposed by legislative requirements on creditors’ meeting to approve the JM proposal. These obstacles are encountered at three stages of a JM application: first, at the initial stage of the application; second, in considering the merits of the JM; and third, when the creditors vote to approve the application.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"21 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In embracing corporate rescue, Malaysia introduced Judicial Management (JM) into its company law framework on 1 March 2018. The mechanism was modelled on Singapore's Judicial Management, which itself was based on the United Kingdom (UK) Administration Procedure. Despite its laudable objective of facilitating the rescue of financially distressed companies, the path to JM is paved with obstacles. This article identifies some of these obstacles and examines the issues that give rise to them. At the same time, the article proposes legislative reforms, drawing on comparative laws in Singapore and the UK. For the purposes of this article, three obstacles are examined: first, the power of a secured creditor or debenture holder to veto the JM application; second, the stringent and prohibitive burden imposed on an applicant company caused by the judicial interpretation, at times conflicting, of the provisions governing the application of a JM order; and third, the higher threshold imposed by legislative requirements on creditors’ meeting to approve the JM proposal. These obstacles are encountered at three stages of a JM application: first, at the initial stage of the application; second, in considering the merits of the JM; and third, when the creditors vote to approve the application.
马来西亚司法管理之路障碍重重:新加坡和英国的经验教训
在接受企业拯救方面,马来西亚于 2018 年 3 月 1 日将司法管理(JM)引入其公司法框架。该机制以新加坡的 "司法管理 "为蓝本,而新加坡的 "司法管理 "则是以英国的 "行政程序 "为基础。尽管司法管理的目标是促进挽救陷入财务困境的公司,这一点值得称赞,但通往司法管理的道路上障碍重重。本文指出了其中一些障碍,并研究了导致这些障碍的问题。同时,文章借鉴新加坡和英国的比较法,提出了立法改革建议。本文研究了三个障碍:第一,有担保债权人或债券持有人否决联合管理层申请的权力;第二,司法解释(有时相互冲突)中关于申请联合管理层命令的规定给申请公司带来的沉重负担;第三,立法要求债权人会议批准联合管理层建议所带来的更高门槛。这些障碍在联合机制申请的三个阶段都会遇到:第一,在申请的初始阶段;第二,在审议联合机制的优点时;第三,在债权人投票批准申请时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信