Vincent Ng J:

It is consistent with judicial prudence, and indeed with the current mood for transparency, that a judge should endeavour to promptly render at least the crux (however skimpy) of the rationale for his decision even should he be so severely pressed for time, especially where the subject matter involves an immense sum - the gross debt in the instant case is RM1.6 billion; such prudence, so as to obviate any speculation in financial circles that the judge may have made a peculiar or controversial decision at odds with a reasoning mind. Before me is the applicants' (the Metroplex Group) fifth applicationvide summons in chambers (encl. 82) for a further extension of the Restraining Order (RO) dated 22 October 2002. Following encl. 82 various creditors of the applicants filed applications under O. 15 r. 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of the High Court 1980,vide encls. 102, 109, 111 (and under encls. 77 and 81 earlier) to intervene in encl. 82 and to oppose the extension of the RO. By consent of the applicants in encl. 82, respondents 3 and 4,vide encls. 102 and 109, were granted leave to intervene in and to participate in the arguments in encl. 82. Enclosure 82 was also opposed by the above respondents 1 and 2, who were earlier allowed by consent to intervene under encls. 77 and 81 respectively. Also allowed, by consent, to intervene were ten of the eleven intervenersvide encl. 111 (as intervener number 4 withdrew upon commencement of the hearing). The applicants in encl. 111 are the applicants' bankers and secured creditors, who also prayed (in prayer 4 of encl. 111) for the setting aside of the original RO dated 22 October 2002 and its subsequent renewals. Ranged against the applicants at the hearing (which was adjourned into open court) was a team of about eleven lawyers who represented the respondents and interveners in encls. 77, 81, 102, 109 and 111.

The undisputed facts in the matter are,inter alia:

(a) the applicants first defaulted in various debt payment obligations in 2000;

(b) between 2000 and 2002, the applicants sought the assistance of the Corporate Debt Restructuring Committee (CDRC) to restructure their debts in the aggregate sum of RM1.6 billion - but without any success;

(c) in 2002, the applicants withdrew from the CDRC process and initiated proceedings under s. 176(10) of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act);

(d) the applicants obtained the Restraining Order on 22 October 2002 - thereafter the court extended the RO on 4 occasions during a period of over two years. The most recent extension was from 15 July 2004 to 22 October 2004; and

(e) on 19 October 2004, approximately four years after default and over two years after the RO, the applicants proposed a new scheme of arrangement (the October 2004 Proposed Scheme) to its creditors (the Scheme Creditors).

As a decision on the matter now before me would have to be made in accordance with the law, it is appropriate to set out the following relevant statutory provisions applicable to encl. 82 to extend the RO. Section 176(10A) states that:

(10A) The Court may grant a restraining order under subsection (10) to a company for a period of not more than ninety days or such longer period as the Court may for good reason allow if and only if:

(a) it is satisfied that there is a proposal for a scheme of compromise or arrangement between the company and its creditors or any class of creditorsrepresenting at least one-half in value of all the creditors;

(b) the restraining order is necessary to enable the company and its creditorsto formalise the scheme of compromise or arrangement for the approval of the creditors or members pursuant to subsection (1);

(c) a statement in the prescribed form as to the affairs of the company made up to a date not more than three days before the application is lodged together with the application; and

(d) it approves the person nominated by a majority of the creditors in the application by the company under subsection (10) to act