1. ) ELAINE GAY CHOW SONG 2. ) KWAN HUNG CHEONG 1. ) ZUNG ZANG HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) WONG NYUK CHING 3. ) KWAN PHUI HA 4. ) SEBASTIAN KWAN KUAY TAT 5. ) ZUNG ZANG TRADING SDN. BHD. BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)

WA-24NCC-237-05/2025 Kand. 206 11/03/2026 12:06:38 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCC-237-05/2025 In the matter of Sections 346, 464 and/or 465 of the Companies Act 2016 And In the matter of Zung Zang Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (Company No. 199701027151 / 442649-T) BETWEEN 1. ELAINE GAY CHOW SONG (USA PASSPORT NO. 451404461) 2. KWAN HUNG CHEONG (NRIC NO. 630427-12-5053) …PLAINTIFFS AND 1. ZUNG ZANG HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. 199701027151 / 442649-T) 2. WONG NYUK CHING (NRIC NO. 391026-12-5006) S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3. KWAN PHUI HA (NRIC NO. 590411-12-5100) 4. SEBASTIAN KWAN KUAY TAT (NRIC NO. 941011-12-5031) 5. ZUNG ZANG TRADING SDN. BHD (COMPANY NO. 199401011641 / 297320-P) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZUNG ZANG WOOD PRODUCTS SDN BHD) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 184) 1. On 3-2-2026, this Court dismissed an application filed on 2-1- 2026 by the 2nd Plaintiff for leave to discontinue his action with liberty to re-file and no order as to costs (“Enclosure 184”). An appeal has been filed against that decision. 2. This Judgment should be read together with the main Judgment delivered on 3-2-2026 in respect of the application by the 2nd to 4th Defendants pursuant to Order 14A Rule 1 and/or Order 33 Rules 2 and 5 of the RC (“Enclosure 144”). It sets out the procedural history of this matter, leading up to the filing Enclosure 184. 3. The stated reason for the filing of Enclosure 184 is the fact that the 2nd Plaintiff, an undischarged bankrupt, had not obtained prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency to S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal commence this action. Two of the threshold questions raised in Enclosure 144 dealt specifically with this issue and was answered as follows: Question 4 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff, upon being adjudicated bankrupt and remaining an undischarged bankrupt, has lost possession, control and custody of his shares in the 1st Defendant pursuant to Section 8(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1967 and therefore cannot exercise any independent right or control over the same without the Director General of Insolvency consent and/or approval? ANSWER: Yes. P2 cannot commence any claim premised on his pre-bankruptcy shareholding in ZZH without the permission of the Director General of Insolvency as property in the shares had vested in the Director General of Insolvency upon the Receiving Order made against P2. Question 5 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff, being an undischarged bankrupt, has failed to obtain the sanction from the Directors General of Insolvency prior to the filing of Enclosure 1 herein, as required under Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967? S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ANSWER: Yes. P2 failed to obtain the prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency before Enclosure 1 was filed herein, in contravention of section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967. In consequence Enclosure 1 herein and all applications filed thereunder, are incompetent as actions of P2 who had no locus standi to instruct solicitors and to file this action. 4. Following the above determination and the determination of the other threshold questions concerning the locus standi of the 1st Plaintiff in Enclosure 144, Enclosure 1 was struck out and dismissed against all Defendants, and all interlocutory or interim orders made in these proceedings were discharged and set aside. 5. Enclosure 184 was decided before the delivery of the main Judgment in Enclosure 144. In line with the answer to Question 5 above, it was dismissed. Even if Enclosure 184 had been entertained on its merits, the 2nd Plaintiff was by no means the dominus litis at the material time, and the application would in any event have been refused. 6. Since all actions taken by or on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff were null and void, this Court gave him liberty to refile. However, considering the steps taken by or on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff despite the objections as to his locus standi from the outset of these proceedings, costs were awarded against his estate. S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7. The cost order was made in the main Judgment on Enclosure 144 i.e. the costs of and incidental to Enclosure 144 was awarded to the Defendants following the event in the sum of RM150,000 in favour of the 2nd to 4th Defendants, and RM20,000 in favour of the 1st Defendant, payable jointly and/or severally by the Plaintiffs. Bertarikh: 11 Mac 2026 ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Peguam Untuk Plaintif-plaintif: Renu Zechariah (Manmohan Singh Kang, Aneera Joshini Chowdhury, dan Lu Yiing Suey bersamanya) Tetuan A.J. Chowdury Untuk Defendan Pertama: Muhammad Firdaus bin Daniel Tan Tetuan Fahri, Azzat & Co Untuk Defendan Kedua hingga Celine Chelladurai (Oommen Keempat: Kurien dan Annete Magimay bersamanya) Tetuan Celine & Oomen S/N zZlXS1oqZEaEaStymbELNw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal