Law updates - Company (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations 
HC = high court 
COA = court of appeal 
FC = federal court  

Metroplex Berhad & 15 Ors v Morgan Stanley Emerging Markets Inc & 3 Ors (RHB Sakura Merchant Bankers Berhad & 10 Ors - intervener) [HC] 
Section 176(10A) of the act not only provides that an ro may only be granted if there was a proposal for a scheme of compromise which involved creditors representing at least one-half in value of all the creditors, but it also stipulates that an ro may only be extended for a longer period "if and only if" there was a "good reason" to do so. The words "good reason" have been construed by the courts to mean, inter alia, where a bona fide scheme of arrangement was present; the scheme of arrangement presented must not be such that is bound to fail; and that the interest of creditors, i.e. the beneficiaries under the proposed arrangement, were safeguarded. On the facts of the case, the applicants did not seem to have a bona fide scheme of arrangement to achieve their supposed goal of settling the debts. There had been no such compromise or arrangement proposed and all the requirements stipulated in subsection (10A) had not been met. All the provisions of s 176 of the act must be met afresh (which the applicant had not done) in order to empower the court to grant any extension of the ro. As at the date of the instant application, the applicants only managed to show that only 48.52% of the creditors have agreed to the application for extension and that only "some" creditors have given their approval to the proposed scheme itself whereas s 176(10A) requires approval of at least 50% in value of creditors before the court could grant an ro it was apparent that the applicants had not met the conditions in 10A and they would not be in a position to produce a scheme of compromise or arrangement that was viable, reasonable, or feasible even if their fifth application to extend the life of the ro was granted.

Popular posts from this blog

Law updates - Insurance (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited v Indra Janardhana Menon (dilantik menurut Perintah bertarikh 17-1-2005 untuk mewakili harta pusaka NVJ Menon, Si Mati) [FC]   The court of appeal was correct to hold that Menon was entitled to the overriding commission as paragraph II(A)(I) of the circular makes provision for the payment of overriding commission to an immediate superior at the rate of 10% of the group scheme agent's commission. In the circumstances of the case, Menon was Indrani's immediate superior as he was the one who recruited Indrani. From the facts, there was no evidence identified by the court of appeal to establish the parties intention that the obligation to pay overriding commission was a continuous one and not from time to time as and when payment became due. There was also nothing to show in any of the agreements that the parties had agreed to prolong the obligation to
Read more

Law updates - General (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   Ngu Toh Tung & 7 Ors v Superintendent of Lands & Survey, Kuching Division, Kuching & Anor [COA] administrative law; land acquisition J & C New Poly Catering Sdn Bhd v TTMP Bakun Consortium Sdn Bhd [HC] The general rule is that a high court will not issue an injunction to restrain the execution of another high court order. However, the high court possesses inherent jurisdiction to do justice in each case. Thus, an interim injunction could be issued to restrain execution of a decree if it could be shown that the execution would result in an injury to the party against whom the execution was directed at. As a matter of practice, applications for a garnishee order are made before the sar or dr and the decision is appealable to a judge in chambers. Even though under the rules of the high court 1980, service of originating process or other court documents on a corporation or company should
Read more

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?

In LSSC Development Sdn Bhd v Thomas Iruthayam & Anor [2007] 2 CLJ 434, the Court of Appeal held that where purchasers were given a defective house out of time by the developer, for the defects, that was something for which they were entitled to be compensated. As for the delay in delivery, the contract itself contained a clause which provided the formula for the compensation that the developer must pay for its lateness. This was the clause to which the purchasers have recourse as it created a contractual obligation to pay a single sum by way of liquidated damages for the period during which they were kept out of the building for which they had already paid, such sum being calculated upon the basis set out in the sale and purchase agreement.
Read more