ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD

Organisation 2 cases

About ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD

ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD appeared as respondent in 2 cases. Cases span the High Court (2).

How many court cases involve ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD?

ALPHACAPITAL BERHAD appears in 2 published judgments from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as respondent (2 cases).

Practice Areas

Sections 346(2)(e), 465(1)(f) and 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)- Petitioners are investors who subscribed to Redeemable Preference Shares Islamic (“RPS-i”) issued by the Respondent pursuant to Subscription Agreements and an Information Memorandum- Respondent has failed to pay monthly returns and to redeem the RPS-i upon maturity- Respondent opposes the petition- petition constitutes an abuse of process to exert pressure for repayment- no debt presently exists-the alleged obligations are conditional upon distributable profits and unfulfilled contractual preconditions- three Petitioners were ineligible to participate as “Sophisticated Investors” within the meaning of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”)- Whether there exists an undisputed, presently due debt entitling the Petitioners to invoke section 465(1)(f)-Whether the Petitioners’ alleged rights to returns and redemption have crystallised-Whether there is oppression or other conduct rendering it just and equitable to wind up the Company-Whether the petition amounts to an abuse of process- Petitioners have produced no contrary financial evidence- no debt has arisen. The alleged “monthly returns” are expectations, not debts due-Section 465(1)(h) is generally invoked where there is a deadlock, loss of substratum, or exclusion of shareholders with a legitimate expectation of participation in management- Petitioners are holders of non-voting RPS-i shares-they are passive investors with no managerial or governance rights- No evidence has been adduced of deadlock, exclusion, or misconduct by directors-The loss of confidence in management, however genuine, does not of itself justify a winding-up order under section 465(1)(h)- this petition is not a bona fide invocation of insolvency jurisdiction but a device to exert commercial pressure- no clear, presently due, and undisputed debt has been established- No oppression, mismanagement, or breakdown of substratum has been proven-the petition amounts to an abuse of the winding-up process- the petition is dismissed. 2

Respondent (2)

ba-28ncc-556-09-2024 MYHC

1. ) MOHD LASIM BIN MAHMUD 2. ) NOHAMAD FUARD BIN CHE IBRAHIM 3. ) AFIFAH HANIE AHMAD 4. ) SITI SAFIAH BINTI MOHAMED IZHAM 5. ) SURAYA BINTI AHMAD TERMIZI v ALPHACAPITAL (M) BERHAD

3 November 2025

ba-28ncc-557-09-2024 MYHC

1. ) NORINAH BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD JAMEL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) SAFIAH BINTI SAMAT 4. ) FATIRAH BINTI SABIL 5. ) SA'ADAH BINTI MOHD AMIN 6. ) ZAWIAH BINTI A.RAHMAN 7. ) IZAHAM SHAH BIN MUSA 8. ) NORHAZRIN BINTI AZALI 9. ) MAS AYU BINTI ADNAN 10. ) AHMAD TAUFIQ HIDAYAT BIN AHMAD HASSANUDIN 11. ) FATIMAH ALIAA BINTI AZLAN 12. ) NOR ALIZA BINTI JAAFAR 13. ) 13)MOHAMED IZHAM BIN ISMAIL 14. ) SITI AYUNI BINTI HASSANUDIN 15. ) HANA HANURYANA BINTI MD JANI 16. ) PREIMA DEVI A/P APPUKUTTEN 17. ) SAR...

3 November 2025