{"title":"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","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":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"55 1\",\"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}","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}
The Path to Judicial Management in Malaysia is Paved with Obstacles: Lessons from Singapore and the United Kingdom
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.
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.