Any proceedings that might have been continued or commenced by or against a company by its former name may be continued or commenced by or against it, by its new name.” 12) The JC also referred the SAR to the case of Re: Lim Chin Suan; Ex Parte: Ambank (M) Berhad [2013] MLRHU 736 where his Lordship YA Lee Swee Seng dismissed the issue on change of name as a ground to oppose the Creditor’s Petition by stating the following: “[31] AmFinance Berhad subsequently changed its name to AmBank (M) Berhad, the JC herein. It is undisputed that both are the same entity bearing the same company number of 8515-D. Therefore the JC is the party who for the time being is entitled to enforce a final judgment or order against the JD. S/N vi0vt6nvrkuAZrUN25WpQ [32] It is both a flawed and faulty argument that the Judgment is a nullity merely because when it was entered, the Vesting Order had already taken effect such that AmFinance Berhad is substituted for AmBank Berhad but that as the Vesting Order did not provide a substitution by AmBank (M) Berhad, then the current bankruptcy proceedings in the name of AmBank (M) Berhad is a nullity. [33] Section 23(6) of the Companies Act 1965 dispels any such misconception for it provides as follows:"(6) A change of name pursuant to this Act shall not affect the identity of the company or any rights or obligations of the company or render defective any legal proceedings by or against the company, and any legal proceedings that might have been continued or commenced by or against it by its former name may be continued or commenced by or against it by its new name." [34] The Federal Court in Perkayuan OKS No 2 Sdn Bhd v. Kelantan State Economic Development Corp [1995] 1 MLRA 67; [1995] 1 MLJ 401; [1995] 1 CLJ 761; [1995] 1 AMR 944 had quite clearly held that a change in the name of a company 'does not affect the entity of the company'. [35] More to the point is the Singapore Court of Appeal case of K-Rex Finance Ltd v. Cheng Chih Cheng [1993] 1 SLR 46 where it was held as follows:"Before dealing with their submissions, we wish to state that we do not agree with the learned trial judge that the appellants could not continue with this action because of their change of name. Section 28(6) of our Companies Act (Cap 50, 1990 Ed) (numbered as s 23(6) in Cap 185, 1970 Ed) provides that the change of name made by a company incorporated in Singapore pursuant to that Act shall not affect the identity of a company or any rights or obligations of the company or render defective any legal proceedings by or against the company, and any legal proceedings that might have been continued or commenced by or against it by its former name may be continued or commenced by or against it by its new name. This provision indicates that in this jurisdiction the relevant date for the purpose of naming a party to an action is the date of commencement of proceedings. In the present case, the change of name was made by the appellants pursuant to the Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong. In the absence of evidence to the contrary that the provisions of the Hong Kong Ordinance are different from the Singapore Companies Act, we shall have to assume that the Hong Kong law is the same as Singapore law and therefore the appellants' change of name should not render these proceedings defective: see r 18, Ch 9 of Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (11th Ed) at p 217." (emphasis added) [36] Having established that the Judgment entered in the name of AmBank Berhad is validly entered by virtue of s 50(3) of BAFIA in that the Judgment is deemed to have been entered in AmFinance Berhad's name and that AmFinance later underwent a change of name under s 23 of the Companies Act 1965 to AmBank (M) Berhad, the bankruptcy proceedings commenced S/N vi0vt6nvrkuAZrUN25WpQ in the name of AmBank (M) Berhad cannot be a nullity or be defective. There is a clear directive that a legal proceeding may be commenced or continued in its new name which is that of AmBank (M) Berhad. The Vesting Order with its overriding effect over any other laws as provided under s 50(3) BAFIA and a name change of the vested entity under s 23 Companies Act 1965 both combine to support the validity of a bankruptcy action commenced in the name of AmBank (M) Berhad.” 13) The JC argued that, similar to the case of Re Lim Chin Suan above, the Company number of the JC had never been changed and only the name was changed. Referring to Section 28 of the Companies Act 2016 and to YA Lee Swee Seng’s decision above, it is clear as day that Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and Fujifilm Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd were one and the same entity and that the change in name would not affect the rights and obligations of the JC. 14) During oral submissions before the SAR, the JD requested that the Additional Affidavit affirmed by Yeoh Tze Liang on 9/2/2022 be expunged on grounds that the said affidavit could not be filed or used to support the Creditor’s Petition and to reply to the Notice of Intention to Oppose the Creditor’s Petition at the same time. 15) The JD’s contention is that the mode of reply to the Notice of Intention to Oppose the Creditor’s Petition is not by way of Affidavit and thus, the JD’s Notice of Intention to Oppose the Creditor’s Petition has not been replied, or objected to. 16) The JD further contends that the said affidavit should be expunged as it is an additional affidavit whereas the Insolvency Act 1967 had prescribed as below: “Proceedings and order on creditor’s petition