Golden Palm Growers Berhad v Mtrustee Berhad (WA-24NCC-369-07/2019)

MTRUSTEE BERHAD [Business Registration No.: 163032-V]

LING NGONG HIANG [Identity Card No.: 440920086089]

PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN LADANG RAKYAT NEGERI KELANTAN

1.

CHUA SIOW CHAY

LEE WEE KWAN [Passport No.: K3091504K]

SUGANTHAN A/L SUMELINGAM [Identity Card No.: 761008105859] ... INTERVENER LIM KENG PEO [Identity Card No.: 750330085899] ...LIQUIDATOR JUDGMENT Background to Application for Directions [1] On 11.11.2019, pursuant to the Originating Summons No. WA- 24NCC-369-07/2019 dated 12.7.2019 (“OS 369”) filed by Golden Palm Growers Berhad (“GPGB”) being the Management Company of a scheme involving the creation of interests under the Interest Schemes Act 2016 (“the Act”), known as the Golden Palm Growers Scheme (‘the Scheme’), this Court in exercise of its powers under sections 65 and 67 of the Act, ordered that the Scheme be wound up and that a Liquidator be appointed and duly empowered to take the responsibility to wind up the Scheme in accordance with the Trust Deed dated 26.7.2010 (“the Trust Deed”) and the Golden Palm Growers Berhad Management Agreement (“the Management Agreement”). [2] This Court also ordered that upon the sale of the assets of the Scheme that there shall be no distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds to the Growers or any payments made to any parties by the Liquidator except with the approval of the Court. More specifically at para [129] of my Judgment, I directed that: “[129] Any claims by any parties against the assets belonging to the Scheme can be presented to the Liquidator who may determine the same. Where necessary, such claims can be referred to the Court for determination with the recommendation from the Liquidator whether to accept or reject and the reasons for the same after assessing the validity of the claims. There should be no payments made in respect of these claims until after approvals by the court and payment ought to be made together with the distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds”. [3] Enclosure 147 is the Liquidator’s application for directions essentially on the manner in which the proceeds of sale of the assets of the Scheme are to be distributed. [4] The Liquidator has completed the sale of the Concession on 30.4.2024 with the full purchase price paid by the purchasers (“the Sale Proceeds”). Pursuant thereto, the Liquidator had sent notices to all the Growers and creditors of the Scheme to submit to the Liquidator: a) for the Growers, a proof of ownership of their respective Grower Plots together with all relevant supporting documents; b) for the creditors of the Scheme, a proof of debt for their respective claims together with all relevant supporting documents. [5] The Liquidator has also placed on advertisement in The Star and Berita Harian newspapers on 26.6.2024 to notify Growers and creditors to submit their proofs of ownership and debts respectively by 26.7.2024. [6] The Liquidator has completed the adjudication of the claims and thus sought the Court’s directions and approvals on the payment to creditors from the Sale Proceeds and the manner of distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds to the Growers. Legal Issues Arising at Hearing [7] At the hearing of Enclosure 147, the following legal issues were raised which required determination by this Court, namely: a) whether the following creditors can claim against the Sale Proceeds: i) Dato Paragash CR Suberamaniam, a sum of RM425,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of the Management Company (“GPGB”); ii) Dhanesh Gunaratnam, a sum of RM40,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of GPGB; iii) Chai Foong Chu, a sum of RM13,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of GPGB; iv) Duplex Fame Sdn Bhd, a sum of RM2,660,544.00 being a loan to GPGB to be used for working capital (this creditor has been excluded from the Liquidator’s approved list exhibited as “LKP-2” of Lim Keng Peo’s affidavit of 29.10.2024). (collectively referred as “the Disputed Creditors”) b) whether GPGB is a Grower and if so, the number of Grower Plots owned by GPGB; c) whether GPGB is entitled to any refund from the Net Sale Proceeds under the 3rd Schedule of the Trust Deed (“the 3rd Schedule”). d) whether under the 3rd Schedule, the distribution to the Growers as refund is to be made pari passu from the Net Sale Proceeds after deduction of the costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale and payment to the creditors of the Scheme as approved. Distinction between creditors of the Scheme (“Scheme Creditors”) and creditors of the Management Company (“GPGB Creditors”) [8] The disagreement between the parties as to the Disputed Creditors’ entitlement to claim from the Sale Proceeds has to do with the argument that a distinction is to be made between creditors of GPGB being the Management Company on the one hand and creditors of the Scheme on the other, if any. [9] It is not in dispute that the Sale Proceeds shall be refunded to the Growers only after deducting all expenses including payments to the creditors of the Scheme. However, there were differing opinions as regards who should be treated as creditors of the Scheme (“Scheme Creditors”) and creditors of GPGB (“Company Creditors”). In other words, whether there is any distinction between creditors of the company and the Scheme and if so, how to determine or resolve the distinction. [10] Learned counsel for the Liquidator opined that there is and should be a distinction between the two and suggested that creditors are Scheme Creditors if the debts were incurred by GPGB in the interest of the Scheme as opposed to debts incurred by GPGB in its own corporate interest. In other words, if GPGB incurred the debts with the creditors for the benefit of the Scheme, the creditors are to be treated as Scheme Creditors and entitled to look to the Sale Proceeds for the payments of the debts. [11] Learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, Mr Ling contended instead that this Court should seek guidance from the Trading, Profit & Loss for the period ended 30 June 2013 Account prepared by GPGB itself. In that accounting document, expenses of the company were categorized under 2 separate and distinct categories, namely, ‘Growers Scheme Expenses’ and ‘Administrative Expenses’. The former covered limited types of expenses only, e,g net yield expense, trustee charges, management or marketing fees, repurchase plots fee and stamp fees. It was suggested that only such expenses ought to be considered as debts incurred for the Scheme. Any other expenses incurred that were not placed by GPGB under the ‘Grower Scheme Expenses’ category should not be treated as Scheme Creditors. [12] With respect, to my mind, both the contentions above are unsatisfactory. Whilst the definition of Scheme Creditors by learned counsel for the Liquidator appears attractive initially, I foresee problems in distinguishing what would constitute debts incurred ‘in the interest of the Scheme’ from those incurred ‘in the interest of the Management Company’. This is because conceptually the interest of the Scheme can also be said to be in the interest of the Management Company. [13] As regards Mr Ling’s reference to the Trading, Profit & Loss for the period ended 30 June 2013 Account, no principled basis for determining whether a particular expense is to be placed in either the ‘Growers Scheme Expenses’ or the ‘Administrative Expenses’ had been proffered. [14] In fact, the Net Yield payable to the Growers is recorded in the Trading, Profit and Loss Statements for 2012 to 2017. It was on this basis that learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, Mr Ling contended that the Net Yield payable ought to be deducted from the Net Sale Proceeds. With respect, the obligation to pay the Net Yield rests with GPGB at all times under the Trust Deed. This is clear from Clause 4.1 of the same. Being an obligation of GPGB, such debts cannot be paid from the Net Sale Proceeds as to do so would mean that the Growers are to be paid the Net Yield out of their own pockets. By the aforesaid, it must follow that I also do not accept Mr Ling’s contention that the 2nd Defendant’s right to the Net Yield should be given priority over the other Growers merely because they had commenced the action and obtained judgment in respect of the same. [15] I find it more helpful to look to the 3rd Schedule for guidance as to what are the debts that could be deducted from the Sale Proceeds. More specifically, item 2 of the 3rd Schedule provides: ‘For the purposes of calculating the amount to be refunded under paragraph 1, “Net Sale Proceeds” means the proceeds of sale of that part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation after deducting costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale (including, but not limited to, valuation, legal and audit costs), taxes, duties, lawful set-offs, deductions, costs, expenses, charges and outgoings.’ [emphasis added] [16] Based on the aforesaid, what is stipulated is that only those ‘costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale’ (emphasis mine) are to be deducted from the Sale Proceeds to arrive at the ‘Net Sale Proceeds’. Thus, it must follow that only the creditors of such costs and expenses are to be treated as Scheme Creditors. To my mind, these would include all costs and expenses properly incurred from the time this Court ordered the Scheme to be wound up and sold on 11.11.2019 until and including the completion of the sale of the Scheme. This will necessarily include any costs and expenses incurred for repairs and maintenance services for the Scheme’s vehicles to be used for the Plantation pending the completion of the sale, fees payable during the sale period e.g. MTrustee’s annual fees and charges, professional fees for the valuation of the Scheme and other professional fees incurred for meeting any legal requirements being costs and expenses relating to the sale. [17] Based on the aforesaid, it is clear to me that the following cannot be treated as Scheme Creditors: a) outstanding salaries as employees of GPGB for Dato’ Paragash CR Subramaniam, Dhanesh Gunaratnam and Chai Foong Chu; b) loan to GPGB to be used for working capital from Duplex Fame Sdn Bhd. [18] These debts of the Disputed Creditors were never incurred ‘in relation to the sale’ of the Scheme at all. Indeed, these debts were incurred even before the order of this Court on 11.11.2019 that the Scheme be wound up. [19] For clarity, I understand that the Liquidator has already excluded Duplex Fame Sdn Bhd from his approved list of Scheme Creditors exhibited as “LKP-2” of Lim Keng Peo’s affidavit of 29.10.2024. Further, all parties had no dispute that the claim by KPMG Tax Services Sdn Bhd for RM 11,799.10 for services rendered prior to the winding up of the Scheme is also to be excluded. Whether GPGB is a Grower and if so, the number of Grower Plots owned by GPGB [20] The Scheme had 44,000 Grower Plots. Out of the 44,000 Grower Plots, 26,500 plots were sold to the public (“Public Plots”), leaving 17,450 Grower Plots remaining unsold. [21] It is GPGB’s case that it owned the 17,450 Grower Plots and in reliance on Clause 3.3(c) of the Trust Deed, the GPGB claimed that by virtue of the company holding these Grower Plots, it is deemed to be a ‘Grower’ for the purpose of the Trust Deed and is therefore entitled to the benefit of the distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds. Premised on the aforesaid, GPGB claimed that it is entitled to the refund from the Net Sales Proceeds together with the other Growers as provided in the 3rd Schedule. [22] To examine GPGB’s position, it is necessary to look at the definitions of ‘Grower’ and ‘Grower Plot’ in the Trust Deed. [23] In this regard, “Grower” is defined as ‘a person who is registered as a holder of a Grower Plot in the Register of Growers and includes the Management Company for so long as the Management Company holds a Grower Plot’. [24] Clause 5 of the Trust Deed governs the Register of Growers and stipulates that “[a]n up-to-date Register of Grower shall be maintained and kept under the control of the Management Company in written form or other means (including microfilm, microfiche or electronic recording) as the Trustee shall from time to time approve’. It also requires that specific particulars of the Growers and the Grower’s Certificate number of each of the Growers to be entered in the Register of Growers within 30 days from the occurrence of certain events associated with the obligation of the Grower to pay the Grower Fee save that in respect of the Management Company, the specific particulars shall be entered in the Register of Growers ‘as soon as possible’. [25] By the aforesaid, I understand that to mean that whatever number of Grower Plots that are held by GPGB, this number would immediately be entered in the Register of Growers as unlike the other Growers, GPGB did not have to pay any Grower Fee for their Grower Plots. [26] In this regard, the Liquidator had exhibited an extract of the Annual Return of GPGB for the financial year end 30 June 2019 before this Court and referred specifically to a document annexed thereto which sets out: a) in Annexure ‘A”, particulars of individual interest holders; b) in Annexure “B”, particulars of body corporate interest holders; c) a ‘Summary of All Purchases And Sales of Properties and Marketable Securities Affecting the Interest of the Holders’ (“the Summary”) where it was recorded that a total of 26,550 Grower Plots had been sold and 17,450 being ‘Held by Management Company/Trustee (to state whichever is applicable)’. [27] Based on the said document, both the Liquidator and GPGB asserted that GPGB holds 17,450 Grower Plots under the Scheme. [28] With respect, this cannot be correct. Quite clearly, the figure 17,450 in the Summary merely refers to the balance unsold Grower Plots as at 26.8.2019. It does not mean that GPGB is the owner of these Grower Plots in accordance with the terms of the Trust Deed. In fact, the Summary does not even unequivocally identify GPGB as the owner of these Grower Plots. On the contrary, both GPGB and the Trustee are stated as the party holding the 17,450 Grower Plots. [29] In any case, the Summary is obviously not the Register of Growers as defined in the said Clause 5 of the Trust Deed. To my mind, Annexures “A” and “B” are the Register of Growers. The contents are duly certified by one Mr Danesh a/l Gunaratnam, a director of GPGB. These Annexures also contained most of the particulars specified in Clause 5 that are required to be entered in the Register of Growers. There are no other documents of GPGB produced before this Court which purports to be the Register of Growers. [30] Significantly, in Annexure “B”, GPGB is recorded as holding only 5 Grower Plots as at 26.8.2019. This means that GPGB’s claim that it has 17,450 Grower Plots is not borne out by the Register of Growers at all. Based on Clause 5.5, ‘[t]he Register of Growers shall be conclusive evidence that the Grower Plot described therein is vested in the Grower for the time being named therein.’ [31] Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that GPGB’s claim to have 17,450 Grower Plots has no merits at all. Instead, GPGB owns only 5 Grower Plots in the Scheme. This is notwithstanding that under Clause 3.3 the Trust Deed, it is expressly provided that GPGB shall hold 4,400 Grower Plots as Reserved Grower Plots. Whether GPGB is entitled to any refund from the Net Sale Proceeds under the 3rd Schedule of the Trust Deed (“the 3rd Schedule”). [32] Notwithstanding that GPGB owns the Grower Plots as stated in the Register of Growers, there are reasons to conclude that the Grower Plots held by GPGB would not be entitled to the refund from the Net Sale Proceeds provided for in the 3rd Schedule. [33] Although Clause 3.3(c) of the Trust Deed expressly states that ‘the Management Company shall, by virtue of the Management Company holding any Grower Plots, be deemed to be a Grower for the purpose of [the] Deed and be entitled to the benefit of and bound by the terms and conditions therein’ the same is expressly qualified by the words ‘unless otherwise provided’. [34] The 3rd Schedule provides that the Growers are entitled to ‘refund’ upon termination of the Scheme pursuant to Clauses 7.12, 21.2 and

All these Clauses deal with the sale of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation arising from the closing of the Scheme and for the Management Company to refund to the Grower an amount to be calculated in accordance with the 3rd Schedule. Each of these Clauses states that: ‘The Management Company shall refund to the Grower the amount calculated in accordance with the Third Schedule within 30 days of the date of receipt of the net proceeds of sale of that part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation’ [35] I take the aforesaid to mean that from the sale by GPGB of the part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation, which to my mind means the entire 7,000 acres of the Land designated as the Scheme, GPGB is obliged to refund to the Grower the amount calculated in accordance with the 3rd Schedule within 30 days of receipt of the net proceeds of sale. [36] Clause 21.3 deals with the termination of the Scheme pursuant to a winding up pursuant to section 95 of the Companies Act 1965 (which was later superseded by section 65 of the Act). Clause 21.4 deals with the consequence upon termination, in particular, Clause 21.4(d) stipulates that with the termination of the Scheme, ‘the Growers shall cause the Grower Plots to be return by the surrender of the Grower’s Certificate to the Management Company’. [37] Although it is not stated in the 3rd Schedule that the manner of the refund stated therein will apply in the event of a winding up of the Scheme, I had in my Judgment opined and held that the same formula therein is to be applied in the winding up of the Scheme in this case. To be clear at paras [135] and [136] of my Judgment, I stated thus: “[135] Under the 3rd. Schedule of the Trust Deed, upon the termination of the Scheme, the Management Company shall refund to a Grower for each Grower Plot an amount equal to the Net Sale Proceeds attributable to a quarter acre of the Plantation. The ‘Net Sale Proceeds’ is defined to mean the proceeds of sale of that part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation after deducting costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale including but not limited to, valuation, legal and audit costs), taxes, duties, lawful set-offs, deductions, costs, expenses, charges and outgoings. [136] There is no reason why the same approach cannot be applied to the case of winding up. However, as the winding up is effectively administered by the Court, no distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds should be made except with the approval of the Court”. [38] The 3rd Schedule provides that the GPGB ‘shall refund to a Grower for each Grower Plot an amount equal to the Net Sale Proceeds attributable to a quarter acre of the Plantation’. [39] The Trust Deed defines ‘Grower Plot’ as ‘an interest under the Scheme that entitles the holder to the Net Yield’. This suggests that only Growers with ‘Grower Plots’ that entitle the holder thereto to be paid the Net Yield are entitled to the refund from the Net Sale Proceeds. [40] This means that the plots held by GPGB, be it 5 as stated in the Register of Growers or even 17,450 as claimed by GPGB will not be entitled to any refund from the Net Sale Proceeds. This is because GPGB was not entitled to the Net Yield in respect of its Grower Plots. Indeed, it is common ground that GPGB had never been paid the Net Yield during the entire period of the Scheme. [41] To my mind, there is good reason why the 3rd Schedule is formulated such that only Growers with Grower Plots that entitle the holder to Net Yield are to be refunded. As rightly contended by Mr Justin Voon, under the Scheme the Net Yield is only payable to ‘investors’ to the Scheme. These are individuals and corporate entities who had paid the Grower’s Fee for their Grower Plots. Having made their investment in the Scheme, in the event of termination and the sale of the part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation, these investors would have to surrender their Grower Plots back to GPGB leaving them with nothing. It is for this reason that the Trust Deed provides that they shall become entitled to a refund from the Net Sale Proceeds. [42] GPGB on the other hand, did not have to pay any Grower’s Fee for its Grower Plots. Neither did GPGB need to pay the Annual Management Fee (See Clause 4.2(a)). Further, whilst the rights of other Growers rest in contract only with GPGB (See Clause 4.3(c)), this cannot be the same for GPGB for the simple reason that GPGB cannot have a contract with itself. Also, significantly, unlike GPGB, the other Growers do not share in the profits of the company at all. [43] Indeed, it is for this very reason that such Grower Plots held by GPGB were never paid any Net Yield at all throughout the entire duration of the Scheme. Having not paid any monies for these Grower Plots, the question of ‘refund’ which means to repay or reimburse what had been paid, simply does not arise. [44] The aforesaid interpretation is also consistent with Clause 4.3(b) of the Trust Deed which stipulates that the ‘rights conferred by each Grower Plot shall rank pari passu with each other unless otherwise specified in the Grower’s Management Agreement’. It is not insignificant that this particular Clause uses the ‘Grower Plot’ instead of the Grower when referring to the rights ranking pari passu. In other words, only Growers with interest in plots that entitle the holder to the Net Yield have rights to share pari passu. Whether under the 3rd Schedule, the distribution to the Growers as refund is to be made pari passu from the Net Sale Proceeds after deduction of the costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale and payment to the approved Scheme Creditors [45] What remains for determination is the meaning of the words ‘attributable to a quarter acre of the Plantation’ stated in the 3rd Schedule. On this, I am inclined to accept the contention by Mr Justin Voon that this ought to be interpreted to mean that the Net Sale Proceeds is to be distributed pro rata to only Growers who are entitled to be refunded based on the number of quarter acre plots that were attributed to each of them. In other words, the Net Sale Proceeds will be divided equally among the entitled Growers in accordance with the number of Grower Plots that were attributed to them. [46] To my mind, the word ‘attributable is referred to in the 3rd Schedule is because by the time the Net Sale Proceeds is realized, the Growers are no longer the holders of an interest in the Plantation since under Clause 21.4(d), it is expressly provided that upon termination of the Scheme, ‘the Growers shall cause the Growers Plots to be returned by the surrender of the Grower’s Certificate to the Management Company’ and by Clause 22 when the Scheme is order to be wound up and sold, the part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation had to be sold. [47] The aforesaid interpretation is also consistent with the statement in the prospectus issued by GPGB which states that: ‘Upon expiry or early termination of the Scheme, a Grower will receive his proportionate share of the net sale proceeds of that part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation’ [48] In this regard, I do not accept Mr Tan, learned counsel for GPGB’s contention that the said words in 3rd Schedule should be construed to mean only the rateable or proportional value of the Net Sale Proceeds that are attributable to the Grower Plots which are to be refunded. By his interpretation, Mr Tan contended that each of the Growers would be entitled to be refunded their proportionate share of the Net Sale Proceeds only and would not be entitled to partake in any excess by reason of certain Grower Plots not being entitled to any refund. In other words, if GPGB’s Grower Plots are not entitled to any refund under the 3rd Schedule, the portion of the Net Sale Proceeds which would otherwise be paid to GPGB’s Grower Plots would have to be paid back to GPGB as ‘undistributed monies’ upon completion of the winding up of the Scheme. [49] With respect, such an interpretation is inconsistent with the stipulation in Clauses 7.13(e)(ii), 21.2(b) (ii) and 22.4 of the Trust Deed and indeed in the 3rd Schedule itself, which to my mind implicitly provide for the entire Net Sale Proceeds to be refunded to the Growers. By limiting the refund to only Growers with Grower Plots, the 3rd Schedule envisages that there would be some Growers who are not entitled to the Net Yield not being entitled to any refund. Yet, there is no mention or provision made at all in the 3rd Schedule as to how such portion of the Net Sale Proceeds that will be left ‘unrefunded’ is to be dealt with. To my mind the reason for the aforesaid is because the entire Net Sale Proceeds are to be refunded pari passu to all the Growers with Grower Plots as defined in the Trust Deed. [50] There is another reason why I disagree with Mr Tan’s interpretation. If he is right, it will mean that there is more incentive for the Management Company not to sell the plots and or to cultivate the plots and to have that part of the Plantation Concession relating to the Plantation sold than to achieve the stated objective of the Scheme to ensure maximum investors for the Grower Plots and to cultivate the plots to harvest the oil palm planted. This will be inconsistent with the object of interest schemes as envisage under the Act. [51] For the avoidance of doubt, the Liquidator has finalized a List of the Growers in Appendix 3 to his affidavit affirmed on 1.7.2024 based on the Annexure A and Annexure B attached to the Annual Return of GPGB for the financial year end 30 June 2019 annexed as ‘LKP1’ of Lim Keng Peo’s affidavit of 29.10.2024, which I have identified as the Register of Growers. The pari passu distribution of the Net Sale Proceeds will be made only to the Growers in the Register of Growers and in accordance with the number of Grower Plots stated thereto as owned by the Growers save that GPGB will not be entitled to partake in the distribution for the reasons explained above. Conclusions [52] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, this Court makes the following orders in respect of Enclosure 147: 1) That approval is given to the Liquidator to distribute the proceeds of sale of the assets of the Scheme in accordance with the Order and Grounds of Judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2019 in the following manner: a) First, to settle the costs and expenses incurred in relation to the sale (including but not limiting to, valuation, legal and audit costs), taxes, duties, lawful set-offs, deductions, costs, expenses, charges and outgoings and including the Liquidator’s fees and costs; b) Second, that the following claims of the creditors are to be excluded as Scheme Creditors: i) Dato Paragash CR Suberamaniam, a sum of RM425,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of the Management Company (“GPGB”); ii) Dhanesh Gunaratnam, a sum of RM40,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of GPGB; iii) Chai Foong Chu, a sum of RM13,000.00 being outstanding salary as employee of GPGB; iv) Duplex Fame Sdn Bhd, a sum of RM2,660,544.00 being a loan to GPGB to be used for working capital; v) KPMG Tax Services Sdn Bhd, a sum of RM 11,799.10 being services for tax compliance prior to winding up. c) Third, to distribute within 30 days from the date of this order, the entire Net Sale Proceeds (as defined in the Trust Deed dated 26.7.2010) after deduction of the payments in (a) and (b) above, pari passu to the Growers, towards the refund to each Grower for each Grower Plot of any amount equal to the Net Sale Proceeds attributable to a quarter acre of the Plantation (as defined in the Trust Deed dated 26.7.2010).

That the Liquidator be at liberty to apply to the Court for any further directions or order as necessary.

That there be no order as to costs. Dated the 26th day of December 2024 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 & Admiralty Counsel:

Ms. Nathalie Ker Si Min for Liquidator

Mr. Tan Shang Neng together with Ms. Ricci Oly Ting and Ms. Chris

Mr. Muhammad Hasif bin Ghazali for 1st Defendant Messrs. Masleena, Yee & Partners (Kuala Lumpur)

Mr. Jerry Ling for 2nd Defendant & 2nd Intervener

Mr. Justin Voon Tiam Yu together with Mr. Victor Pang Chee Siong for 3rd and 4th Intervener

Puan Fadilah binti Abdul Wahab for Intervener

Sections 65 and 67 of the Interest Schemes Act 2016 2.