Khee San Berhad & Ors v. Tunai Impian Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] MLRHU 714
The High Court dismissed Tunai Impian Enterprise Sdn Bhd (Tunai), a scheme creditor’s application to set aside a Sanction Order granted under a scheme of arrangement, following opposition by two intervening financial institutions. The Court upheld arguments by Ms Koh San Tee that (i) section 369D of the Companies Act 2016 does not empower the court to unwind a sanctioned scheme, and (ii) Tunai was estopped from challenging the scheme due to its failure to disclose a secret deal with the scheme companies at the time of sanction. This decision reinforces the finality of sanctioned schemes and underscores the duty of full disclosure during approval proceedings.
Cecily Kee Ling Ling v. Valiantview Constrcution Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) (HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd, Applicant) [2021] MLJU 550
The High Court granted leave to a financial institution to proceed with legal action against the liquidator of the developer (in liquidation) and ordered that the vesting order obtained by the liquidator shall not apply to specific property within the development. The Court accepted Ms Ooi Ai Yen’s submission that the financial institution held an equitable mortgage over the property, having acquired its beneficial interest, and thus the liquidator had no authority to deal with it.
High-5 Conglomerate Berhad & Ors [2015] MLJU 1903
The Applicants sought concurrent orders under section 176 of the Companies Act 1965 to extend the restraining order and call for a creditors’ meeting to consider the Proposed Restructuring Scheme (“the PRS”). The High Court agreed with Mr. Benjamin Dawson that the PRS was not viable and not bona fide and rejected the application.
