Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4208
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MYCREATIVE VENTURES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
VISION ANIMATION SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-459-07/2024]
The contractual terms impose an unequivocal payment obligation on the guarantor upon the principal debtor's failure to redeem shares, warranting summary judgment without the need for trial.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Share Subscription Agreement - Letter of Undertaking - Redemption of Shares - The Plaintiff sought summary judgment for a Redemption Amount due after the First Defendant failed to redeem 5,000,000 Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares by the due date. The court found clear obligations under the SSA and the Letter of Undertaking, imposing immediate payment duties on the Second Defendant upon default. The Second Defendant's claims of procedural flaws and the need for co-surety involvement were dismissed as unfounded. (Paras 18, 30, 54)
(B) Summary Judgment - The court indicated that contractual language detailing immediate payment obligations in the event of default must be honored without unnecessary delays or preconditions, dismissing the Second Defendant’s objections as unfounded. (Paras 12, 53)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff entered a Share Subscription Agreement with the Defendants for the issuance of Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares. The First Defendant failed to redeem the shares by the stipulated date, leading to claims for payment under the SSA and the Letter of Undertaking. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff's claims were upheld; the Second Defendant was liable for the amounts claimed under the agreements, with no viable defense presented. (Paras 31, 54)
Issues: Whether the second defendant had a binding payment obligation under the contractual documents and the implications of not notifying the second defendant of the redemption or extension periods. (Paras 13, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that clear contractual terms imposed payment obligations, concluding that the Plaintiff’s entitlement to recover the amount due was enforceable without requiring additional consents from the defendants or the need for trial. (Paras 11, 54)
Result: Summary Judgment application granted; Striking Out application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of share subscription agreement (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. claim for summary judgment against the second defendant (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. triable issues raised by the second defendant (Para 13 , 16 , 19) |
| 4. court's analysis on obligations under ssa and letter of undertaking (Para 18 , 31) |
| 5. analysis of notice and consent requirement (Para 32 , 34) |
| 6. co-surety implications concerning double vision (Para 38 , 40) |
| 7. intent of arrangement concerning payment liabilities (Para 43 , 47) |
| 8. appellate decisions' relevance and applicability (Para 48 , 49) |
| 9. final decision and order of the court (Para 53) |
(Enclosures 13 and 15)
[1] Before the court are two applications arising from a share subscription arrangement, one seeking summary judgment for a claimed redemption amount and the other aiming to strike out the claim as unsustainable. The key issue is whether the contractual obligations have been effectively triggered, justifying summary relief, or if the case should be dismissed without a full trial.
Background Facts
[2] This case concerns a financial and contractual arrangement involving a Share Subscription Agreement dated 10 April 2015 ("SSA"), executed between the Plaintiff, MyCreative Ventures Sdn Bhd, the First Defendant, Vision Animation Sdn Bhd, the Second Defendant, Low Huoi Seong, and another entity, Double Vision Sdn Bhd ("Double Vision") The SSA governed the subscription by the Plaintiff to 5,000,000 Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares (" RCPS") in the First Defendant, amounting to a total value of RM5,000,000.00. The subscription was carried out in eight tranches.
[3] Under the SSA, the First Defendant was obligated to redeem the RCPS at the "Redemption Amount" after five years from the date of issuance of the first tranche, setting the redemption date as 31 December 2020. In the event of failure to redeem, Item H(iv)(c) of the SSA specified that the First Defendant would incur a separate and independent obligation to immediately pay the Redemption Amount to the Plaintiff as a debt due and owing.
[4] Further, Item M(i) of the Third Schedule to the SSA identified circumstances constituting an "Event of Default." These included the failure of the First Defendant to redeem the RCPS when due or the failure of any ordinary shareholder of the company, such as the Second Defendant, to procure or guarantee the redemption.
[5] On the same date as the SSA, a Letter of Undertaking was executed by the Second Defendant and Double Vision. In the Letter of Undertaking, the Second Defendant provided an irrevocable and unconditional commitment to ensure that the First Defendant had sufficient funds to address any cash shortfalls or cost overruns. Paragraph 4 of the Letter of Undertaking also stipulated that upon a request for redemption of the RCPS, the Second Defendant was required to "immediately pay, repay, settle and discharge in full all monies due and payable" under the SSA.
[6] Despite these obligations, the First Defendant failed to redeem the RCPS on the redemption date of 31 December 2020. The Plaintiff subsequently issued notices of redemption on 11 January 2021 and 1 June 2023 to inform the Defendants of the redemption obligations. Both notices specified a Redemption Amount of RM7,032,910.96. However, the First Defendant failed to comply with these notices.
[7] On 24 November 2023, the Plaintiff's solicitors issued a demand letter to the Defendants, reiterating their failure to redeem the RCPS and demanding payment of the outstanding amount. Despite this demand, neither defendant fulfilled the obligations to procure or guarantee redemption, nor did they make any payment toward the Redemption Amount.
[8] As a result, the Plaintiff initiated legal proceedings by filing a Writ and Statement of Claim on 12 July 2024. The First Defendant did not enter an appearance, leading to a Judgment in Default of Appearance being entered against it on 2 August 2024.
[9] F
