Back
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJ, ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF, J, NORDIN HASSAN, J
MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Adrian Sia Koon Leng – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal questions concerning creditor voting (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. background facts regarding the appellant's proposed scheme (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's findings on the proposed scheme's uncertainty (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. importance of creditor representation in a scheme (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. discounting related party votes (Para 36 , 49) |
| 6. need for transparency in creditor schemes (Para 50 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 7. final conclusion on the appeal dismissal (Para 66) |
[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court Judge of Melaka not to sanction the appellant’s proposed scheme of arrangement under section 366(1) Companies Act 2016 (“the CA ”)section 368Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
[2]Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court and this was allowed with 10 questions of law posed to this court for determination.
[3]The questions are as follows:
Question 1
Whether the votes of related-party creditors are to be treated differently from the votes of other creditors in the same class in the scheme of arrangement.
Question 2
If the answer to 1 is yes, whether the v
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
