JUDGMENT

Saheran Suhendran JC:

[1] These Grounds concern the following applications for the appointment of a private liquidator ("the PL") pursuant to s 477 of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016").

a. Encl 1: MMM Group Berhad (formerly known as Asia Media Group Berhad) (Company No.: 813137-V) ("Applicant or MMM") filed an application dated 14 June 2024 to appoint Andrew Heng and Ashvin Mahendran ("Applicant's Nominees") as the private liquidators of Asia Media Sdn Bhd ("AMSB"). AMSB was at all material times, a wholly owned subsidiary MMM;

b. Encl 11: Peakmax Sdn Bhd's ("Peakmax") filed an application dated 27 November 2024 to appoint Tee Siew Kai ("Peakmax's Nominee") as the private liquidator of AMSB.

Background Facts

[2] Pursuant to a winding-up petition presented by Plisch Broadcast Asia Pacific Pte Ltd ("Plisch"), a creditor of AMSB, a winding-up order was granted against AMSB on 9 April 2021. The Official Receiver ("OR") was appointed as the liquidator of AMSB.

[3] Only three (3) creditors, including Plisch, have lodged proofs of debt ("PODs") with the OR, namely:

[4] On 14 June 2024, the applicant filed Encl 1 nominating the Applicant's Nominees to be appointed as liquidators of AMSB.

[5] The OR held a creditors' meeting to ascertain the wishes of the creditors on the appointment of the applicant's nominees as liquidators of AMSB. The creditors' meeting was finally held on 18 September 2024 (the initial meeting on 27 August 2025 was adjourned due to the lack of quorum). The votes cast were as follows:

See: Laporan Keputusan Mesyuarat Am Pemiutang dan Penyumbang in Encl 7, pp 9–18.

[6] Encl 1 was met with opposition in the form of Encl 11, pursuant to which, Peakmax nominated Peakmax's Nominee to be appointed as the liquidator.

The Choice

[7] Therefore, I was faced with a choice between 2 sets of nominees. The determining factor would ordinarily be the wishes of the majority creditors.

[8] Hence, the case for the applicant is that a large majority of the creditors favoured the appointment of the Applicant's Nominees. The Court of Appeal in Malaysian Assurance Alliance Bhd v. Comsa Properties Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal; [2011] 7 CLJ 942 held, amongst others, that the main voice in the appointment of a liquidator are the majority creditors.

"(4) The Appellant was a substantial creditor of Comsa, thus it must naturally follow that the appellant had the right in the choice of the liquidator of Comsa."

[9] In Dato' Sri Shamir Kumar Nandy v. Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (Encl 6); [2022] 6 AMR 913 at paras 24 and 25, the High Court when faced with a choice of liquidator, also considered the view of the majority creditors in value.

[10] Indeed, the appointment of a liquidator is normally based on the majority wishes of creditors. In Southwind Development Sdn Bhd v. Tanjung Tiara Sdn Bhd it was held:

"[26] I agree with YA Tuan Lee Wee Seng that "the Court is obliged to give regard to the wishes of the creditor, all other things being equal, based on the value of the creditors' debt." In the present Application the result of the meeting was that the 5 creditors having 96% interest in value terms had voted for the appointment of HJK & AH whilst the 8 creditors having only 4% interest in value terms had voted for the OR to be the liquidator. It is between value and number. Surely the Court is obliged to consider the wishes of these 5 creditors and I do so by appointing HJK & AH as joint liquidator."

[11] I do accept, however, that the views of the majority creditors are not conclusive. In Abdul Rahman Ismail v. Pembangunan Qualicare Sdn Bhd, it was held:

"[22] Consequently but subject to disqualification because of conflict of interest, the appointment of liquidator is often based on majority wishes: see Malaysian Assurance Alliance Bhd v. Comsa Properties Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal; [2011] 7 CLJ 942."

[12] Similar reservations were held by Justice Nadzarin Wok Nordin in Tai Heng Leng @ Tek Hean Leng v. New Future Capital Sdn Bhd & Another Case (