Unsecured creditors may participate in and oppose a judicial management application as the Companies Act does not expressly preclude them from doing so.

JUDGMENT

Nadzarin Wok Nordin JC:

[1] This is an application under encl 10 herein being the Amended Notice of Application by one Gan Kam Seng and 27 others as proposed interveners (First Proposed Interveners) to intervene pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 2012 to become interveners in these proceedings.

[2] The grounds relied on by the First Proposed Interveners are that they are bona fide purchasers who have now become victims as a result of legal proceedings between Goldpage Sdn Bhd (Applicant), and one Plusbury Sdn Bhd.

[3] There is also another application under encl 16 being the Notice of Application by one Tee Ah Kiat and 2 others as proposed interveners (Second Proposed Interveners) to intervene pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 2012 to also become interveners in these proceedings.

[4] The grounds relied on by the Second Proposed Interveners are that they have obtained judgment against the Applicant for RM857,203.27 (not inclusive of interest) (Judgment) via Civil Suit No: BA-B52NCVC-79-03/2019 and that todate the Applicants have failed to satisfy the said Judgment. It is further stated that the Applicants application for judicial management under s 405 of the Companies Act 2016 will affect their rights as owners to obtain vacant possession of properties purchased from the Applicant where there has been a delay of more than 3 years.

[5] There is also an application filed by Plusbury Sdn Bhd (Plusbury) under encl 20 to intervene in the proceedings and be made a party thereto on the ground that Plusbury is a creditor of the Applicant for the sum of RM12,514,666.26 by way of a Joint Venture Agreement dated 19 September 2008 (JVA) and an Additional Joint Venture Agreement dated 6 July 2009 (SJVA) which were executed for the purposes of a mixed development of a piece of land belonging to Plusbury. It was further contended that Plusbury had made the said payment to Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad on behalf of the Applicant to avoid legal proceedings on the land and/or the land being forfeited of which the Applicant has todate failed to repay to Plusbury.

[6] Plusbury also contends that the Applicant's application for judicial management will seriously affect the JVA and the SJVA and that such application clearly shows that the Applicant has wrongly blamed Plusbury for the Applicant's current insolvency and that the Applicant has shown an intention not to repay the monies it owes to Plusbury.

[7] Finally, there is an application by one Unqiue Mix Sdn Bhd (UMSB), a proposed intervener under encl 26 to intervene in the proceedings and be made a party thereto on the ground that UMSB will be affected by the Applicant's application for judicial management. UMSB had presented a winding up petition at the High Court at Kuala Lumpur upon the ground that the Applicant owes them a debt of RM1,005,300.50 and that a consent order had been entered with the Applicant at the hearing of the said petition of which in furtherance of the said consent judgment/order UMSB had then filed a civil suit to recover the sums as per the consent judgment/order which the Applicant is contesting.

Applicant's Submissions

[8] The Applicant had at the outset submitted that by the provisions of statute and case law precedent, all of the proposed interveners have no locus standi to appear at the hearing of an application to oppose the application of a judicial management order as they are not parties who have appointed or may be entitled to appoint a receiver or receiver and manager and/or are in any way secured creditors of the Applicant and that none of them is a creditor majority in number and value that represent 75% of the total value of creditors and that their total combined sums (not including Plusbury) represent only a mere 16.88% of the total value of creditors.

[9] The Applicant thus quotes r 13(1)(a) & (b) - Part III, Judicial Management of the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 and the case of Leadmont Developm