Abdul Aziz Mohamad J:

As I have said earlier, this is a D4 case that is before me in my capacity as a vacation judge. The last day of the current court vacation is 19 September.

After hearing counsel on several occasions, particularly on the question posed by me as to whether, in view of the restraining order sought, this application ought to be served on the creditors that will be affected by the restraining order, I make the following decisions and orders.

I postpone this application to 21 September for mention before the learned D4 judge.

I am of opinion that only further proceedings in a pending action or proceeding may be restrained under s. 176(10) of the Companies Act 1965.

I am also of opinion that this application ought to be served on the creditors whose actions or proceedings are sought to be restrained, so that they may have an opportunity to oppose the application for the restraining order.

Learned counsel for the applicants has indicated that further proceedings in the pending actions listed in exh. 8 to encl. (2) need not, at least for the time being, be restrained because the creditors in those actions will not be included among the scheme creditors.

There is, therefore, only one matter that might be regarded as a pending action or proceeding by a scheme creditor. The scheme creditor is AMMB International (Labuan) Ltd ('AMIL'), who hold a debenture on the assets, etc of LTL ('the third applicants') as one of the securities for a loan of RM211,534,000 granted by AMIL to PGB ('the first applicants'). AMIL have called in the loan and they are entitled at any time now to enforce their rights under the debenture, including the right to appoint a receiver and manager of the assets, etc of LTL.

I order that this application be served on AMIL.

As the applicants fear that AMIL may appoint a receiver and manager at any time now, and that if that were to happen they will be deprived of any opportunity to promote the scheme, I make an interim order, to last for two weeks from today, restraining AMIL from enforcing their rights under the debenture.

Besides the AMIL debenture, there is only one other matter relating to the question of pending actions and proceedings about which counsel has expressed concern. It is an assignment by MPG ('the fifth applicants') to Phileo Allied Bank of certain rentals as one of the securities for a loan of RM163,749,000. It was feared that if the assignment were enforced and the rentals were paid to the assignee, the acceptability of the scheme might be prejudiced. Counsel felt that a restraining order in respect of the assignment was necessary. Due to lack of information about the incidents and terms of the assignment, I have not been able to assess whether, in respect of the assignment, it can possibly be said that there is a pending action or proceeding. Neither have I been able to appreciate the manner in which the enforcement of the assignment is likely to prejudice the acceptability of the scheme. I therefore decline to make any restraining order in respect of the assignment. The applicants are given the liberty to make a separate application for a restraining order specifically in respect of the assignment, giving by affidavit the necessary information in support.