KUASA WAJA AUTOMOBILE Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates the two-sided position of a distressed automotive group — seeking scheme-of-arrangement protection and a restraint on creditors while defending banking-recovery claims on its facilities.

Kuasa Waja Automobile (M) Sdn Bhd appears in the reported judgments as a company within an automotive corporate group facing both a scheme-of-arrangement restructuring and banking-recovery litigation in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi). Its matters place it on the applicant side of a corporate-rescue attempt and on the defendant side of lenders' summary-judgment claims.

In one matter the company was among a group of applicants seeking leave under sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016 to convene a creditors' meeting to present a scheme of arrangement and to restrain proceedings against them. The applicants proposed a revised scheme after an earlier scheme had been withdrawn following creditor opposition, and the court had allowed both secured and unsecured creditors to intervene and oppose the application. The issues included whether the revised scheme was genuinely different and contained better particulars, and whether it disclosed sufficient information for leave to be granted — questions central to the court's gatekeeping role at the leave stage of a scheme of arrangement.

On the recovery side, the company was a defendant to a bank's summary-judgment claims under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. The court considered whether the defendants had raised triable issues, whether there was a manifest error in the Certificate of Indebtedness, whether the lender should have commenced the charged action before proceeding against the defendants in the suit, whether the interest charged was excessive, and whether the defendants were bound by the documents they had signed under the facilities agreement and guarantee. Across the matters, the company illustrates the two-sided position of a distressed corporate group: seeking the protection of a scheme of arrangement and a restraining order against creditors on one hand, while simultaneously defending recovery actions in which lenders press for judgment on their facilities and guarantees on the other.