[2005] 6 CLJ 194 (HC)
The petitioner sought the Court’s sanction for a scheme of arrangement and compromise pursuant to s.176 (3) and (4) of the Companies Act 1965. Datuk Ganesan for the interveners opposed the petition on grounds that (i) the petitioner’s Explanatory Statement was misleading, inaccurate and did not contain sufficient information to enable the creditors and shareholders to make an informed decision; (ii) the petitioner failed to ensure that different categories of creditors with different interests and rights were properly constituted when calling for the meeting of Scheme Creditors to consider and vote on the proposed Scheme; and (iii) the Creditors Meeting held was null and void. The court held that the said creditors’ meeting was null and void.