CLASSIC MARITIME INC 1. ) LION DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS BERHAD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) Benapro Sdn. Bhd.

CLASSIC MARITIME INC 1. ) LION DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS BERHAD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) Benapro Sdn. Bhd.

The appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden that the liquidator breached his duty to obtain the best price; the liquidator acted within his discretion, ran a public tender and relied on a licensed corporate finance valuation (with a marketability discount) producing a sale price not shown to be undervalue; the 26 August 2021 directions were final and peremptory judicial orders appealable to this Court, so the appellant should have appealed rather than invoke section 517 to set aside a court order; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
W-02(A)-1956-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Classic Maritime Inc; First Respondent: Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad (In Liquidation); Second Respondent: Benapro Sdn Bhd
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 March 2025
Case Number
W-02(A)-1956-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidation, Sale of Company Assets, Duties of Liquidator, Appealability of Court Directions Under Section 487(3), Undervalue/realisation of Assets, Public Tender Procedure, Expert Valuation Admissibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Companies Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Liquidation Sale of Company Assets Duties of Liquidator Appealability of Court Directions Under Section 487(3) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Classic Maritime Inc

Appellant

Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad (In Liquidation)

First Respondent

Benapro Sdn Bhd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidator breached his duty to obtain the best price for assets of the company (Banting Resources shares)
  2. 2 Whether the 26 August 2021 directions/order under section 487(3) were appealable or merely administrative advice
  3. 3 Whether section 517 could be used to challenge a court order approving the sale

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden that the liquidator breached his duty to obtain the best price; the liquidator acted within his discretion, ran a public tender and relied on a licensed corporate finance valuation (with a marketability discount) producing a sale price not shown to be undervalue; the 26 August 2021 directions were final and peremptory judicial orders appealable to this Court, so the appellant should have appealed rather than invoke section 517 to set aside a court order; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of RM50,000 to first respondent (Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad) subject to allocatur