Khee San Berhad & Ors v. Tunai Impian Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] MLRHU 714
Two financial institutions who are scheme creditors, intervened in the originating summons to oppose another scheme creditor (“Tunai”)’s application to set aside the Sanction Order in respect of a scheme of arrangement. The High Court dismissed Tunai’s application on inter alia the grounds advanced by Ms Koh San Tee for the two interveners, namely: (i) Tunai cannot rely on s 369D of the Companies Act 2016 to set aside the scheme as the court has a limited role after approving a scheme of arrangement; and (ii) Tunai is estopped from setting aside the scheme having failed to disclose the secret deal entered into between the scheme companies and Tunai, when the court was asked to grant the Sanction Order.
Cecily Kee Ling Ling v. Valiantview Constrcution Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) (HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd, Applicant) [2021] MLJU 550
The Applicant, a financial institution, successfully obtained the leave of the winding up court to commence action against the liquidator of the developer (in liquidation) and an order that the vesting order obtained by the said liquidator shall exclude and have no effect on a property situated within the development on the ground that the beneficial interest of the said property has been assigned to the Applicant. The High Court agreed with Miss Ooi Ai Yen that the Applicant was an equitable mortgagee in law, and therefore the liquidator cannot deal with the said property.
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.
