Cross-Border Insolvency and the Proactivity Gap: A Comparative Study of Provisional Relief in Malaysia and Singapore

An effective cross-border insolvency framework is highly important to address the legal issues and challenges caused by cross-border insolvency that involve multiple jurisdictions due to the wide nature of business operations that can involve multiple assets and creditors around the world. A well developed cross-border insolvency framework that is able to facilitate judicial cooperation of courts of multiple jurisdictions is crucial in order to preserve the debtor’s assets and safeguard the various parties’ interest pending the determination of the insolvency proceedings. The United Nations Commission of International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency provides a great reference for Malaysia and Singapore in enacting their own cross-border insolvency framework. Singapore has earlier reformed its cross-border insolvency law through the enactment of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 while Malaysia just recently in January 2026 enacted its Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 in order to address the limitation in cross-border insolvency cases. This article examines the mechanism of provisional relief in cross-border insolvency Malaysia and Singapore by assessing the creativity gap between these two countries in responding to urgent cross-border insolvency proceedings. In conclusion, a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework is necessary to address the cross-border insolvency challenges in Malaysia and the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 was enacted to tackle these challenges.

Cross-Border Insolvency, Provisional Relief, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

1. Statutes [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Companies Act 2016 (Act 777) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 (Act 877) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Singapore), Third Schedule. (2018). Singapore Statutes Online. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Journal & Book [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Berends, A. J. (1998). The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: A comprehensive overview. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 6(2), 309–340. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Clift, J. (2004). The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: A legislative framework to facilitate cooperation and coordination. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Das, I. (2020). The need for implementing a cross-border insolvency regime within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 21(3), 329–350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Foo, H. (2023). Universalism on the ascent: Singapore’s cross-border insolvency journey. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Godwin, A. (2018). The inherent power of common law courts to provide assistance in cross-border insolvencies: From comity to complexity. International Insolvency Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gopalan, S., & Guihot, M. (2015). Recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency law: A proposal for judicial gap-filling. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 48(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. International Monetary Fund. (1999). General objectives and features of insolvency procedures. In Orderly and effective insolvency procedures. International Monetary Fund. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kho, F. M. (2023). The past, the present and the future of cross-border insolvency: But what’s next for Malaysia? Journal of the Malaysian Judiciary. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lee, S., & Kumar, A. (2024). Cross-border restructuring and insolvency between Singapore and Malaysia. SAL Practitioner, 2024(SAL Prac 3). Singapore Academy of Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Putu Eka Trisna Dewi. (2021). The Execution of Bankrupt Assets in the Case of Cross-Border Insolvency: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 5(1), 47-59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Supreme Court of Singapore & High Court of Malaya. (2021). Resolution on protocols for court-to-court communication and cooperation in cross-border insolvency matters. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2022). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The judicial perspective. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Wan, W. Y. (2018). Implementing strategies for the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The divergence in Asia-Pacific and lessons for UNCITRAL. Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal, 35, 101–146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Webpage [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Alexander, S. I. R. (2025, August 27). Cross border insolvency bill 2025: Summary and its impact on banks. Azhar & Wong. https://azharwong.com.my/cross-border-insolvency-bill-2025-summary-and-its-impact-on-banks/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jones Day. (2024, March 12). Singapore International Commercial Court issues first decision on recognition of cross-border bankruptcy cases under Model Law. https://www.jonesday.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rahmat Lim & Partners. (2025, March 10). Court of Appeal issues landmark decision on scheme of arrangement and clarifies new “cooling off” period for a restraining order. https://www.rahmatlim.com/publication/articles/32033/court-of-appeal-issues-landmark-decision-on-scheme-of-arrangement-and-clarifies-new-cooling-off-period-for-a-restraining-order [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Rajah & Tann Asia. (2024, March 18). Singapore's SICC recognises foreign bankruptcy proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law for the first time. https://www.rajahtannasia.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sarra, J., Madaus, S., & Mevorach, I. (2023). Chasing assets abroad: Ideas for more effective asset tracing and recovery in cross-border insolvency. International Insolvency Review, 32(2), 253–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1499 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Supreme Court of Singapore. (2021, July 15). Malaysia and Singapore implement protocols on court-to-court communication and cooperation in admiralty/shipping and cross-border corporate insolvency matters. Judiciary of Singapore. https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/media-release-malaysia-and-singapore-implement-protocols-on-court-to-court-communication-and-cooperation-in-admiralty-shipping-and-cross-border-corporate-insolvency-matters [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2014). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with guide to enactment and interpretation. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/default/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/1997-model-law-insol-2013-guide-enactment-e.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Wang, Z. (2023). The critical discussion on theories in cross-border insolvency: Universalism, territorialism, and modified universalism. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 5(9), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.050918 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Yadav, A. P., & Kharola, M. (2026). Harmonizing cross-border insolvency: Legal frameworks, challenges and future direction in the globalized economy. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 14(4), c348–c353. https://www.ijcrt.org/viewfull.php?&p_id=IJCRT2604282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Cryptocurrency in Corporate Insolvency: Challenges for Asset Recovery and Creditor Protection in Malaysia (A Comparative Study with Uk and Singapore)