1Malaysia Development Berhad v Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony (WA-22NCC-294-05/2024)

PATRICK ANDREW MARC MAHONY …DEFENDANTS (Passport No.: 099124760)

WHITE & CASE LLP (limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number 0C324340)

[Enclosure 66 plaintiff’s application to consolidate Suit 294 with Suit 337] Introduction The 1MDB saga

On 07-05-2024, the plaintiff 1Malaysia Development Berhad [“1MDB”] filed a suit in the High Court Of Malaya At Kuala Lumpur against the 1st defendant Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony [“Patrick Mahony”] for the sums of US$1,830,000,000 and US$33,000,000; and against the 2nd defendant White & Case LLP [“White & Case”] for the sum of US$1,830,000,000. [See Enclosure 2 Statement of Claim dated 07-05-2024].

1MDB was set up as a state fund by the government of Malaysia with its then Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak [“Najib Razak”] as Chairman of its Board of Advisors.

1MDB was set up with the noble intention to make strategic investments and alleviate poverty. Unfortunately, allegations have been made and civil suits as well as criminal suits have been filed against various parties alleging that its funds have been embezzled, with assets diverted globally. Fraud in the Good Star phase

The suit before me concerns 1MDB’s allegation that fraud took place in two corporate exercises in what is called the Good Star phase. Firstly, it concerned 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi International Ltd and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd, 1MDB’s eventual joint venture partner, in 2009 [“PetroSaudi Entities”]. Secondly, the subsequent restructuring of 1MDB’s stake in the said joint venture in 2010. 1st defendant Patrick Mahony

1MDB alleged the 1st defendant Patrick Mahony was at the heart of the fraudulent scheme. Patrick Mahony at the material time was, inter-alia, the Chief Investment Officer of PetroSaudi International Ltd and also the business partner of one Tarek Obaid. 2nd defendant White & Case

The 2nd defendant in this suit is White & Case. They acted as solicitors for PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd/PetroSaudi International Ltd in both the joint venture and the restructuring of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture.

1MDB sues White & Case for dishonest assistance and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. 1MDB contends the documentation for the fraud was drafted by White & Case pursuant to Patrick Mahony’s instructions. 1MDB further contends that White & Case, i.e. the solicitors doing the work, knew that the joint venture was a sham and part of a fraudulent scheme. Service of writ out of jurisdiction

On 05-06-2024, 1MDB filed an application (i.e. Enclosure 6) for leave to serve these proceedings out of jurisdiction on the defendants. Leave was granted to 1MDB on 01-07-2024.

The Notice of Writ, the Writ and the Statement of Claim were served on Patrick Mahony and White & Case. White & Case applied to set aside service of writ out of jurisdiction and/or to stay proceedings

On 26-02-2025, White & Case filed a Notice of Application under Order 12 rule 10 Rules of Court 2012 [“ROC”] [a replacement for Order 12 rule 7 of the old Rules of High Court 1980] in Enclosure 58 for– i. A declaration that the proceedings herein have not been duly served on White & Case; ii. A declaration that the Malaysian Courts have no jurisdiction over White & Case; and iii. Further or in the alternative, an order that the proceedings against White & Case be stayed on the ground that Malaysia is not the proper forum for the dispute in respect of White & Case.

I heard Enclosure 58 on 01-10-2025, 10-10-2025 and on 17-11-

On 03-12-2025, I dismissed Enclosure 58 with cost of RM 75,000 to be paid by White & Case to 1MDB subject to allocator.

In gist, my reasons were that- i. The Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under Order 11 rule 1 (1) H and J of the ROC and section 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [ “CJA”]; ii. The order for service of process out of jurisdiction was properly granted under Order 11 rule 1 ROC; and iii. Malaysia is also the appropriate forum for the dispute. Application in Enclosure 66 to consolidate Suit 294 with another suit

1MDB had also filed an application [in Enclosure 66] to consolidate Suit 294 with another suit in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No.: WA-22NCvC-337-05/2021 (“Suit 337”) and to proceed as one action and that the title of Suit 337 be amended by adding thereto the title of Suit 294. [“Consolidation Application”].

Suit 337 is against Tarek Obaid, PetroSaudi International Ltd and PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd for, amongst others, conspiracy to injure 1MDB via unlawful means in respect of the Good Star Phase.

On 03-12-2025, I had allowed the Consolidation Application with costs of RM 10,000 against White & Case after hearing submissions from 1MDB and despite opposition from White & Case.

On 04-12-2025, White & Case has appealed to the Court of Appeal against both my decisions. These are my Grounds of Decision for the Consolidation Application. My Grounds of Decision for Enclosure 58 is in a separate Grounds of Decision. Background Facts Parties in Suit 294 before me

The plaintiff 1MDB is a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia having a registered address at Level 5, Suite 5.01, Menara IMC, No. 8, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur. 1MDB is a strategic investment and development company wholly-owned by the Federal Government of Malaysia, through the Minister of Finance (Incorporated).

The 1st defendant Patrick Mahony is an individual of British nationality with a last known address at No 27, Ladbroke Square, London W11 3NB, United Kingdom.

He was the Chief Investment Officer of PetroSaudi International Ltd, a company incorporated in Saudi Arabia and the business partner of Tarik E.A. Obaid @ Tariq Isam Ahmed Obaid @ Tarik Essam Ahmad Obaid @ Tarek Obaid who is the Chief Executive Officer and shareholder of PetroSaudi International Ltd and the sole director of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. [“Tarek Obaid”].

The 2nd defendant White & Case is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number 0C324340 practicing as solicitors in providing legal services with an address at No 5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1DW, United Kingdom.

As mentioned above, the crux of the claim in Suit 294 against Patrick Mahony and White & Case revolves around the fraud that took place in the Good Star phase which concerned 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi in 2009 and the eventual restructuring in 2010 of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture. Proceedings against other wrongdoers instituted by 1MDB

There were several court proceedings against other alleged wrongdoers instituted by 1MDB.

I begin by setting out the names of these other wrongdoers sued by 1MDB in various proceedings so that the various suits can be better understood. Names of other wrongdoers sued by 1MDB in various proceedings

1MDB Management/Employees-i. Najib Razak, Chairman of the 1MDB board of advisors from 2009 until 31-05-2016 and the Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance of Malaysia from 03-04-2009 until 09-05- 2018; ii. Beng Huat Koh, Vice President, Investment of 1MDB from 15- 06-2009 and was promoted to Director, Investments of 1MDB on 01-03-2010, subsequently promoted to Chief Investment Officer of 1MDB on 01-09-2013 and his final employment date with 1MDB was on 31-08-2016[“Vincent”]; iii. Datuk Shahrol Azral bin Ibrahim Halmi, Director of 1MDB from 23-03-2009 until 31-05-2016[“Shahrol Azral”]; iv. Kelvin Tan Kay Jin, Director, Investments of 1MDB from 17- 08-2009 until he was transferred to CEO’s Office as Director, 1MDB Research on 01-11-2011[“Kelvin”]; v. Tang Keng Chee, Executive Director, Business Development of 1MDB from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2011 [“Casey Tang”]; vi. Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Che Lodin bin Wok Kamaruddin, Chairman and non-executive director of 1MDB from 20-10-2009 to 31- 05-2016 [“Lodin”]; vii. Tan Sri Dato’ Paduka Ismee bin Haji Ismail, Non-executive director of 1MDB from 23-03-2009 to 31-05-2016 [“Ismee”]; viii. Tan Sri Azlan bin Mohd Zainol, Director of 1MDB from 11-08- 2009 until 11-01-2010 [“Azlan”]; ix. Ashvin Jethanand Valiram, Non-executive director of 1MDB from 02-02-2010 to 31-05-2016 [“Ashvin”]; and x. Ong Gim Huat, Non-executive director of 1MDB from 12-01- 2010 to 31-05-2016 [“Ong”].

PetroSaudi Entities & Their Representatives-i. Tarik E.A. Obaid @ Tariq Isam Ahmed Obaid @ Tarik Essam Ahmad Obaid @ Tarek Obaid, Chief Executive Officer and shareholder of PetroSaudi International Ltd and the sole director of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd [“Tarek Obaid”]; ii. PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Limited, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands on or about 18-09-2009 [“PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd”]; iii. PetroSaudi International Limited, a company incorporated in Saudi Arabia [“PetroSaudi International Ltd’]; and iv. PetroSaudi International, a company incorporated in Cayman Islands [“PetroSaudi International Cayman”].

Financial Institutions-i. AmBank (M) Berhad, a licensed financial institution in Malaysia [“AmBank”]; ii. BSI SA, a financial institution in Switzerland [‘BSI Bank”]; iii. Coutts & Co Ltd, a company incorporated in Switzerland providing banking services, wealth management solutions, trust and fiduciary services [“Coutts”]; iv. Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad, a licensed financial institution in Malaysia [“Deutsche Bank”]; and v. J.P. Morgan (Switzerland) Ltd, a company incorporated in Switzerland providing asset management, private banking, investment banking, investor services and treasury services [“JP Morgan”].

Others-i. 1MDB PetroSaudi Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on or about 18-09-2009 [“JVCo”]; ii. Good Star Ltd, a company incorporated in Seychelles on or about 18-05-2009 [“Good Star”] and iii. Low Taek Jho, alleged to be Najib Razak’s agent and/or proxy in relation to 1MDB’s affairs [“Jho Low”]. Various legal proceedings against other wrongdoers

As mentioned above, besides Suit 294 against White & Case and Patrick Mahony, 1MDB has also instituted court proceedings against other alleged wrongdoers. These are – i. In Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No.: WA-22NCC-212 05/2021 (“Suit 212”) against Najib Razak and the former directors and members of 1MDB’s management at the material time, including Casey Tang, Vincent and Kelvin for amongst others, breach of fiduciary duties and conspiracy to injure 1MDB via unlawful means, in respect of the fraudulent acts committed and the misappropriation of funds in respect of the four (4) phases widely known as: (a) The Good Star Phase; (b) The Aabar-BVI Phase; (c) The Tanore Phase; and (d) The Options Buyback Phase; ii. In Suit 337 against Deutsche Bank, Coutts, JP Morgan, PetroSaudi International Ltd, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd, Tarek Obaid and Patrick Mahony, for amongst others, a conspiracy to injure 1MDB via unlawful means in respect of the Good Star Phase; and iii. In Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-330 05/2021 (“Suit 330”) against Jho Low and his family members for conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs via unlawful means and improper receipt of the plaintiffs’ funds in amongst others, the Good Star Phase.

Suit 337 is of relevance here as in Enclosure 66, i.e. the Consolidation Application, 1MDB has filed an application to consolidate Suit 294 here with Suit 337 and to proceed as one action and that the title of Suit 337 be amended by adding thereto the title of Suit 294. 1MDB is relying on the Consolidation Application as one of its grounds to oppose Enclosure 58.

In Suit 337, Tarek Obaid, PetroSaudi International Ltd and PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd have entered appearances and have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Courts. Suit 294 - 1MDB’s contentions

1MDB contends as set out below.

The crux of the claim in Suit 294 against White & Case and Patrick Mahony revolves around the fraud that took place in the Good Star phase which concerned 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi in 2009 and the eventual restructuring in 2010 of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture.

At all material times, White & Case acted as solicitors for PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd/PetroSaudi International Ltd in respect of the joint venture and in respect of the restructuring of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture. The Sham Joint Venture in September 2009

1MDB contends that the PetroSaudi Entities lied about having injected assets [“PSI Assets”] that were worth more than US$ 1.5 billion into the JVCo to induce 1MDB into paying US$ 1 billion to subscribe 40% shares in the JVCo pursuant to a joint venture agreement dated 28-09-2009 with PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd (“the JVA”).

The PSI Assets comprise of energy interests in Turkmenistan [“Turkmenistan Assets”] and energy interests in Argentina [“Argentinian Assets”].

The PSI Assets that were injected in the JVCo [by PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd selling its shares in PetroSaudi International Cayman (which supposedly held the PSI Assets) to the JVCo] were pursuant to a share purchase agreement dated 25-09-2009 between the JVCo and PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd (“Share Purchase Agreement dated 25-09-2009”). Share Purchase Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was fraudulent

The Share Purchase Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was drafted by White & Case. 1MDB contends this was pursuant to Patrick Mahony’s instructions. 1MDB further contends White & Case knew of the fraudulent scheme when they drafted the agreement.

1MDB contends that the Turkmenistan Assets were worthless. 1MDB further contends White & Case knew that the PSI Assets were worthless.

1MDB also contends that fraudulent misrepresentations pertaining to the joint venture were also made by certain members of the 1MDB management which caused the then 1MDB board to approve the joint venture.

As a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations and the conspiracy by the various wrongdoers, on 30-09-2009, 1MDB paid US$1 billion to subscribe for a 40 per cent share in the JVCo. Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was a sham

Out of the US$1 billion, US$700 million was paid to Good Star, a company controlled by Jho Low to purportedly repay the JVCo’s loan of US$700 million from PetroSaudi International Holdings (Cayman) Ltd pursuant to a loan agreement dated 25-09-2009 (“Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009”).

The Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was drafted by White & Case. 1MDB contends this was pursuant to Patrick Mahony’s instructions. 1MDB further contends that certain solicitors in White & Case knew of the fraudulent scheme when they drafted the agreement.

1MDB also contends that the US$700 million loan pursuant to the Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was a sham and did not exist.

1MDB contends that the whole point of creating the sham loan of US$700 million owed by the JVCo was to enable US$700 million out of 1MDB’s investment of US$1 billion to be immediately siphoned away upon completion. Tarik Obaid

1MDB further contends out of the US$700 million that was siphoned from 1MDB to Good Star, Good Star paid US$ 85 million to Tarik Obaid (the Chief Executive Officer of PetroSaudi) on 05- 10-2009 pursuant to a Fee Letter dated 30-09-2009 as broker fees for his work in relation to “future investments from the Middle East”. In short, the Fee Letter was an agreement between Jho Low and Tarik Obaid to share the monies that they had siphoned from 1MDB.

Tarik Obaid is one for the seven defendants in Suit 337, the suit to be consolidated with Suit 294 in the Consolidation Application before me. White & Case drafted earlier iteration of the Fee Letter

An earlier iteration of the Fee Letter (“the Earlier Draft Fee Letter”) was drafted by White & Case. 1MDB contends this was pursuant to Patrick Mahony’s instructions on 25-09-2009. 1MDB further contends this fact is relevant to show that White & Case knew that the joint venture was a fraud.

Therefore, 1MDB contends it suffered loss and damage of US$1 billion as a result of the sham joint venture. Restructuring of Equity Stake in the JVCo – 2010

In 2010, 1MDB’s equity stake in the JVCo was sold back to the JVCo in exchange for debt notes pursuant to the Share Sale Letter Agreement by 1MDB to the JVCo [“Share Sale Letter Agreement”] and the Murabaha Facility Agreement (“MFA”).

1MDB contends these agreements were executed sometime in June 2010 but backdated to 31-03-2010.

As a result of this restructuring, in less than a year after 1MDB had paid US$1 billion for the subscription of shares in the JVCo in September 2009- i. 1MDB sold its 40 per cent equity interest in the JVCo back to the JVCo for US$1.2 billion (“the Purchase Price”), in exchange for debt notes issued by the JVCo for the same amount. In this regard, 1MDB would not be receiving the Purchase Price for its sale of shares until 11 years later; and ii. 1MDB also agreed to make available facilities of up to US$1.5 billion to the JVCo under the MFA.

1MDB contends arising from this restructuring a total of US$830 million was further misappropriated from 1MDB. 1MDB’s Causes Of Action Against White & Case

1MDB’s claim against White & Case is for dishonest assistance and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

I begin with dishonest assistance. 1st cause of action-Dishonest assistance White & Case Assisted In Structuring The Fraudulent Joint Venture

1MDB contends the following facts set out below.

PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd was represented by White & Case as its solicitors in relation to its joint venture with 1MDB.

White & Case drafted the Share Purchase Agreement dated 25- 09-2009 and the Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009 that gave rise to the sham loan/advance of US$700 million which formed the wrongdoers’ scheme to siphon US$700 million from 1MDB.

White & Case knew that the loan of US$ 700 million pursuant to the Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009 was a sham and part of the fraudulent scheme. White & Case knew that the PSI Assets were worthless

It is 1MDB’s case that White & Case knew that the PSI Assets were worthless. White & Case Assisted In Concealment & Furtherance of Fraud – Restructuring of Joint Venture

It is 1MDB’s case that White & Case also assisted in the concealment and furtherance of fraud in restructuring the joint venture. Several lawyers from White & Case have been identified by 1MDB as involved. I do not need to name them here. 2nd cause of action - Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means

It is also 1MDB’s case that White & Case together with various wrongdoers such as Najib Razak, Jho Low, Casey Tang, Kelvin, Vincent, Tarik Obaid and Patrick Mahony conspired to injure 1MDB through unlawful means.

I now move to the facts of Suit 337. Crux of Suit 337

In Suit 337, 1MDB’s claim is also in relation to the misappropriation of 1MDB’s monies arising from 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd, to among others, Good Star, during the Good Star Phase.

It is 1MDB’s case in Suit 337 that various parties including Casey Tang and Shahrol Azral (1MDB’s director from 23-03-2009 to 31- 05-2016) had in breach of their fiduciary duties and/or in breach of trust, caused among others, the following agreements to be entered into to allow the siphoning of monies from 1MDB to third parties such as Good Star, and to conceal such misappropriation of funds: i. The JVA; ii. The Letter of Agreement dated 30-09-2009; iii. The Share Sale Letter Agreement; and iv. The MFA.

Specifically, the subject matter funds in Suit 337 which 1MDB says were misappropriated are the same transactions and/or series of transactions as that in Suit 294, i.e. the following: i. The same US$700,000,000 from 1MDB to the Good Star Account on 30-09-2009 as stated above. [See 1MDB’s Affidavit in Support affirmed on 08-04-2025 in support of Enclosure 66 at paragraphs 25 - 43, pages 143 - 149, Enclosure 72]; ii. The same US$300,000,000 from 1MDB to the JVCo Account on 30-09-2009 as stated above. [See paragraphs 44 - 47, page 150, Enclosure 72]; and iii. The same US$500,000,000 transfer to the JVCo Account on 14-09-2010 as stated above. [See paragraphs 59 - 61, pages 152 - 153, Enclosure 72].

The same US$330,000,000 transfer to the Good Star Account as stated above, as follows: i. US$30,000,000 on 20-05-2011; ii. US$65,000,000 on 23-05-2011; iii. US$110,000,000 on 27-05-2011; and iv. US$125,000,000 on 25-10-2011. [See paragraphs 59 - 61, pages 152 - 153, Enclosure 72.]

1MDB’s claim against Deutsche Bank is in essence premised on the breach of Quincecare duty by Deutsche Bank through acts and/or omissions like failing to ask and/or procure the necessary verification and/or clarification from 1MDB to alleviate doubts about the veracity or adequacy of information and the inconsistency of the information given by Shahrol Azral and/or Casey Tang, prior to effecting the transfers of US$700,000,000, US$300,000,000 and US$110,000,000 etc.

1MDB’s claim against PetroSaudi International Ltd, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and Tarek Obaid, among others, in Suit 337 is in essence premised on the following: i. Dishonest assistance by PetroSaudi International Limited and/or PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and/or Tarek Obaid in respect of Casey Tang’s and/or Shahrol Azral’s breach of fiduciary duties and/or trust owed to 1MDB whereby they assisted Casey Tang and/or Shahrol Azral in the siphoning of funds from 1MDB [See paragraphs 117 - 124, pages 176 - 186, Enclosure 72]; ii. Knowing receipt by Tarek Obaid of funds traceable to the US$700,000,000 transfer to Good Star Account and the US$500,000,000 transfer to the JVCo Account where: a) Out of the US$700,000,000 Tarek Obaid received US$85,000,000 and US$68,000,000 on 05-10-2009 and 12-01-2010 respectively; and b) Out of the US$500,000,000 transfer, Tarek Obaid received US$300,000,000 on or about 15-09-2010. [See paragraphs 125 - 129, pages 186 - 187, Enclosure 72] iii. Conspiracy to injure 1MDB by unlawful means by among others, PetroSaudi International Ltd, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd, Tarek Obaid, Shahrol Azral and Casey Tang in relation to the Good Star Phase [See paragraphs 114 - 116, pages 171 - 176, Enclosure 72 Affidavit in support]. Related Parties in Suit 294 and Suit 337

1MDB contends the parties in Suit 294 and Suit 337 are connected, particularly in the context of the Good Star Phase and the underlying transactions as set out below.

1MDB is the plaintiff in both Suit 294 and Suit 337.

The defendants in Suit 294 are Patrick Mahony and White & Case. Patrick Mahony was the Chief Investment Officer of PetroSaudi International Ltd. White & Case was the solicitors for PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd in relation to the joint venture between PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and 1MDB.

White & Case were also-i. The solicitors of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and the JVCo in relation to the Alleged Loan Agreement dated 25- 09-2009 and the Alleged Share Purchase Agreement dated 25-09-2009. In this regard, White & Case drafted both sham agreements. See paragraphs 186 - 189, pages 192 - 195, Enclosure 2 Statement of claim; and ii. The solicitors for PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd/PetroSaudi International Ltd in relation to the Share Sale Letter Agreement, the MFA, and the Corporate Guarantee. In this respect, White & Case drafted the MFA, which enabled further misappropriation of 1MDB funds, and the 14-06-2010 Letter, which backdated key documents to conceal the fraud. See paragraphs 197 - 204, pages 198 - 200, Enclosure 2 Statement of claim.

The current defendants in Suit 337 are Deutsche Bank, PetroSaudi International Ltd, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and Tarek Obaid.

1MDB was a customer of Deutsche Bank.

Tarek Obaid was the Chief Executive Officer and shareholder of PetroSaudi International Ltd and the sole director of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd: See paragraph 12, page 124, Enclosure 2; and paragraph 12, pages 136 - 137, Enclosure 72 Affidavit in support.

PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of PetroSaudi International Ltd: See paragraph 16, page 138, Enclosure 72 Affidavit in support. Grounds In Support Of 1MDB’s Consolidation Application

Lead counsel for 1MDB Dato Lim Chee Wee and his co-counsel Ms. Elizabeth Lau contend the Consolidation Application ought to be allowed for the following reasons: i. Consolidation of Suit 294 with Suit 337 would save judicial time and costs; ii. The facts pleaded in both Suit 294 herein and Suit 337 arise from the same events and/or series of events involving the misappropriation of 1MDB’s funds in the Good Star Phase; iii. There are common questions of fact and law in both Suit 337 and the present suit, which bear sufficient importance in proportion to the rest of the subject matter of the actions; iv. Both Suit 294 and Suit 337 involve common witnesses and substantially similar documents; v. Some of the reliefs and the rights to some of the reliefs claimed in both Suit 294 and Suit 337 are in respect of and/or arise out of the same transaction and/or series of transactions; and vi. There are other reasons which make it desirable for Suit 294 to be consolidated with Suit 337. White & Case’s contentions

Lead counsel for White & Case Mr Christopher Leong Sau Foo disagrees and contends that the Consolidation Application should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given below. [See Enclosure 112 D2’s Written Submissions at paragraphs 3 to 7].

The Consolidation Application does not come close to satisfying the requirements for consolidation set out in Order 4 Rule 1 of the

The plaintiff has not met – and cannot meet – any of the requirements of Order 4 Rule 1 ROC.

There is only very limited overlap on issues of fact, and no overlap at all on key issues of law, between the claims in this Suit and those advanced in Suit 337. It is well-established in case law that commonality in some (or even many) background facts is wholly insufficient.

There is no common right to the relief claimed in the two Suits that arises from the same transaction or series of transactions. To the contrary, the right to relief in Suit 337 is alleged to arise on materially different bases, including alleged breaches of contract and negligence, which do not feature in (and have no relevance to) this Suit 294.

There are no other reasons advanced as to why consolidation would be desirable. There would be no savings of time and costs were consolidation to be ordered. Not only is there insufficient commonality between factual and legal issues arising from the claims advanced – claims which, to reiterate, do not seek the same form of relief – the parties in both Suits already have incurred substantial fees on separate legal representation. Consolidation in these circumstances would serve only to complicate and delay the two Suits, thereby wasting costs and valuable judicial resources, and, in the process, defeating the very purpose for which the discretionary power of consolidation is typically reserved.

The two Suits are at such markedly different stages that consolidation would create manifest unfairness and prejudice to all defendants. For White & Case’s part, it would suffer obvious, and highly material, prejudice by being compelled to participate in a Suit only months from a full trial.

Consolidation would require two entirely separate sets of defendants (and claims) to be combined. As a matter of law, a particularly high bar would need to be met before such consolidation could be ordered, which bar cannot be met here. There is no plausible risk of inconsistent judgments in circumstances where the two Suits involve different causes of action against different defendants based on different issues of fact and law. It follows that questions of liability in Suit 294 can (and should) be answered independently of the outcome of Suit 337, and vice versa.

Doubtless recognising that there is no valid basis for consolidation under Order 4 Rule 1 ROC, the plaintiff has pursued the Consolidation Application for an improper and collateral purpose.

This is a blatant abuse of process which, in itself, warrants dismissal of the Consolidation Application. Specifically, far from being a good faith effort to promote efficiency and fairness in the resolution of the two Suits at issue, the Consolidation Application, at its core, is a belated attempt by the plaintiff to remedy an insurmountable threshold failing in its case on jurisdiction under Order 11 Rule 1(1)(J) ROC.

Simply put, the plaintiff knows that there was no anchor defendant in this Suit 294 that had been served within Malaysia at the time that it sought (and was granted) leave to serve White & Case out of the jurisdiction. Because this undeniable fact is fatal to the plaintiff’s position that Order 11 Rule 1(1)(J) ROC was satisfied at the relevant time, the plaintiff now seeks to correct that prior wrong, by trying to tie this Suit to one in which anchor defendants within Malaysia have been served. Nothing, however, in the ROC or in any other law, allows a plaintiff to use consolidation as a means of re-writing history, so that it can cure, in retrospect, a fundamental jurisdictional flaw. Issue

The issue before me is whether the Consolidation Application should be allowed. Courts’ analysis

Order 4 rule 1(1) of ROC reads as follows: “(1) Where two or more causes or matters are pending, and if it appears to the Court that-

some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them;

the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or

for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this rule, the Court may order the causes or matters to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just or may order the causes or matters to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another or may order any of the causes or matters to be stayed until after the determination of any other of the causes or matters.” (Emphasis added]

I am of the view the grounds for consolidation set out in Order 4 rule 1 ROC 2012 are satisfied by 1MDB.

The Federal Court in Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd v Haron Bin Mohamed Zaid [1979] 2 MLJ 244, FC have said: “The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs and time, and therefore it will not usually be ordered unless there is “some common question of law or fact bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest” of the subject-matter of the actions “to render it desirable that the whole should be disposed of at the same time” Common Questions of Law and Fact

In my view, arising from the same events and/or series of events involving the misappropriation of 1MDB’s funds by related parties in the Good Star Phase there are common questions of fact and law which arise in both Suit 294 and Suit 337, including among others, the following: i. Whether 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd in September 2009 was a sham designed to defraud 1MDB; ii. Whether PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd injected assets which were worth much less than US$2,700,000,000 than represented in the JVA, into the JVCo; iii. Whether the Alleged Loan of US$700,000,000 allegedly owed by the JVCo to PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd referred to in the JVA was in fact a sham; iv. Whether US$700,000,000 was siphoned from 1MDB to Good Star on 30-09-2009 on the false pretext of the JVCo having to repay the Alleged Loan of US$700,000,000; v. Whether Tarek Obaid and Patrick Mahony received monies from the US$700,000,000 which was siphoned from 1MDB to Good Star; vi. Whether the various wrongdoers including among others, Najib Razak, Casey Tang, Tarek Obaid and Patrick Mahony conspired to convert 1MDB’s 40% equity stake in the JVCo in return for debt notes under the MFA and to cause 1MDB to give further loans to the JVCo pursuant to the MFA, so as to conceal the fraud that had occurred in relation to the entry of the JVA and to further facilitate fraudulent misappropriation of funds from 1MDB; vii. Whether the various wrongdoers caused the MFA, the Share Sale Letter Agreement and the Corporate Guarantee to be backdated to conceal the fraud in relation to the entry of the JVA from 1MDB’s auditors; viii. Whether further funds amounting to US$500,000,000 and US$330,000,000 were siphoned from 1MDB to among others, Good Star and Tarek Obaid pursuant to among others, the MFA; and ix. Whether there was conspiracy by the various wrongdoers (including White & Case) to injure 1MDB by unlawful means. Common Documents and Witnesses in Suit 294 and Suit 337

Further Suit 294 and Suit 337 arise from the same underlying factual matrix. Consolidating both suits would therefore save judicial time and costs, as both actions involve overlapping documents and largely the same witnesses.

The key documents common to both suits include, among others, the Alleged Share Purchase Agreement dated 25-09-2009, the Alleged Loan Agreement dated 25-09-2009, the JVA, the MFA, the Share Sale Letter Agreement and the Corporate Guarantee.

As the factual matrix in both Suit 294 and Suit 337 are substantially similar, coupled with the fact that the documents relied upon by 1MDB in both suits are substantially the same, the witnesses that 1MDB and the other defendants will put forward in both suits will also be similar. Reliefs Claimed in Suit 294 and Suit 337 Arise Out of the Same Series of Transactions

Some of the reliefs and the rights to some of the reliefs claimed in both Suit 294 and Suit 337 are in respect of and/or arise out of the same transaction and/or series of transactions.

In particular, 1MDB seeks to recover a total of US$1,830,000,000 misappropriated during the Good Star Phase. This sum comprises: i. US$700,000,000 that was transferred to Good Star on 30- 09-2019; ii. US$300,000,000 that was transferred to the JVCo on 30-09- 2019 and eventually siphoned to PetroSaudi International Cayman; iii. US$500,000,000 that was transferred to the JVCo on 14-09- 2010 and eventually siphoned to Tarek Obaid, PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd and PatroSaudi International Cayman; and iv. A total of US330,000,000 that was transferred to Good Star on various dates. Desirable That Suit 294 and Suit 337 be Consolidated

It would be desirable for this present Suit 294 to be consolidated with Suit 337 for, among others, the following reasons: i. Patrick Mahoney and White & Case both played key roles in a complex fraud which took place across many jurisdictions with the involvement of many parties including the defendants in Suit 337; ii. It does not make sense to carve out the suit against Patrick Mahoney and White & Case from Suit 337 as that would require a large group of witness to testify in two suits on the same set of facts, one in Kuala Lumpur and one in London, as opposed to one consolidated suit in Kuala Lumpur.

In respect of White & Case’s contention that this Consolidation Application is an abuse of process filed to support a jurisdictional gateway, I do not see any abuse as long as the grounds for consolidation set out in Order 4 rule 1 ROC 2012 are satisfied by the plaintiff. Cases relied on by White and Case Federal Land Development Authority & Anor v Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Samad & ors [2022] 7 MLJ 883, HC [“Federal Land Development”]

White and Case relies on Federal Land Development to oppose the Consolidation application. [See White and Case’s Reply written submissions in Enclosure 112 at paragraph 19[a]].

1MDB in its reply written submissions had failed to address this case. As I had admonished counsel in my Grounds of Decision for Enclosure 58, it is incumbent on counsel to do a proper reply written submission to assist the court. This includes distinguishing cases cited by the opposing counsel.

I have pursued Federal Land Development. In that case Mohd Nazlan J refused to consolidate one contractual suit for conspiracy to defraud with three defamation suits. It is obvious the factual matrix in Federal Land Development is as far from the factual matrix in our Suit 294 and Suit 337 as Pluto is to Earth. Ng Joo Soon @ Nga Ju Soon v Devechem Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd and Ors [2010] MLJU 1854, HC [“Ng Joo Soon”].

White and Case also relies on Ng Joo Soon. 1MDB in its reply written submissions had failed to address this case.

I have pursued Ng Joo Soon. In that case, Mary Lim J refused to consolidate an Oppression Petition filed under a statutory right afforded to all minority shareholders under section 181 of the Malaysian Companies Act 1965 with a civil suit. Again, it is obvious the factual matrix in Ng Joo Soon is far from the factual matrix in our Suit 294 and Suit 337. Ivanov v Kantchev and other companies; Nexo Capital Inc v Shulev and others [2025] EWHC 495 (Comm), [“Iankov v Kantchev”]

White and Case further relies on Iankov v Kantchev. 1MDB in its reply written submissions had also failed to address this case.

I have pursued Iankov v Kantchev. Again, it is obvious the factual matrix in Iankov v Kantchev is far from the factual matrix in our Suit 294 and Suit 337. The claimants in the two suits to be consolidated in Iankov v Kantchev are different unlike our Suit 294 and Suit 337 where there is one common plaintiff i.e. 1MDB.

I have also considered the rest of the points raised by White & Case’s and am of the view they are not cogent enough to oppose the Consolidation Application.

For the reasons above, I allow the Consolidation Application [Enclosure 66] with cost of RM 10,000 to be paid by White & Case to 1MDB subject to allocator. Dated: 23rd January 2026 …………(signed)……………… Leong Wai Hong Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCC 6) Counsel for plaintiff: Dato' Lim Chee Wee, Elizabeth Lau, Hazel Siau, Soh Lip Shan, Lynnette Wong and Lee Jie Kai (Pupil in Chamber). Lim Chee Wee Partnership (Kuala Lumpur). Counsel for 2nd defendants: Christopher Leong Sau Foo, Shamala Devi Balasundaram, Siow Poh Ching, Ranjit Singh s/o Harbinder Singh and Yuki Lim Jieny. Chooi & Company (Kuala Lumpur). CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd v Haron Bin Mohamed Zaid [1979] 2 MLJ 244, FC. 2) Federal Land Development Authority & Anor v Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Samad & ors [2022] 7 MLJ 883, HC. 3) Ivanov v Kantchev and other companies; Nexo Capital Inc v Shulev and others [2025] EWHC 495. 4) Ng Joo Soon @ Nga Ju Soon v Devechem Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd and Ors [2010] MLJU 1854, HC. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964, section 23(1). 2) Malaysian Companies Act 1965, section 181. 3) Rules of Court 2012, Order 4 rule 1, Order 4 rule 1(1), Order 11 rule 1 (1) H and J, Order 12 rule 10.