Malayan banking berhad online dating

In the event that the value of the shares falls below the minimum threshold value at any time during the security period, the obligor shall, within 15 days of being so requested by the Bank in writing:(a) provide to the bank additional security having a value (as may be determined by the bank in its absolute discretion) of not less than the shortfall and in the form acceptable to the bank (the “additional security”) and/or5.

The term “shares” in clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking referred to “the 30 million UFS shares held by E-Info which are the subject of the security created under the Memorandum” while the term “minimum threshold value” in that clause was defined to mean “,100,000 calculated on the basis of

The plaintiffs, Malayan Banking Berhad (“MBB”), commenced this originating summons to obtain an order that the defendant, Wisanggeni Lauw (“Lauw”), comply with a Deed of Undertaking executed by the latter on 3 July 2002.

As Lauw failed to comply with MBB’s demand, the latter instituted these proceedings to have clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking enforced.8.

Lauw claimed that MBB’s originating summons ought to be converted to a writ because there are important facts which are disputed.

His assertion that he did not benefit from signing the Deed of Undertaking does not alter the position.

It is trite law that while consideration must be furnished by a party seeking to enforce a contract not under seal, the consideration offered need not move to the promisor.

.17 per share”. On 17 December 2002, MBB’s solicitors informed Lauw in writing that the share value of the UFS shares had fallen below the minimum threshold value and that the bank, relying on clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking, required him to furnish additional security with a value of not less than the shortfall, which amounted to ,050,000 as at 16 December 2002.

approached me and asked me to transfer 57,630,000 shares of United Fiber System Limited (“UFS”) to provide credit support by charging these shares….12.

After having executed the Deed of Understanding for his own reasons to enable Kang to have more time to settle the amount owed by the latter to the bank, Lauw is in no position to argue that the Deed of Undertaking is unenforceable on the ground of absence of consideration.

Secondly, he contended that MBB cannot rely on the Deed of Undertaking in the absence of consideration because it was not sealed.10.

Lauw’s contention that the bank furnished no consideration for the Deed of Undertaking will first be considered.

As such, on 3 July 2002, he entered into a Deed of Undertaking with MBB.

This Deed outlined the undertakings provided by him in relation to a Memorandum of Charge of the same date, under which E-Infohigh Limited (“E-Info”), a company wholly owned by him, executed a first fixed charge over its 30 million shares in United Fiber System Limited (“UFS”) in favour of MBB as security for the amount owed by the companies to the bank.

The plaintiffs, Malayan Banking Berhad (“MBB”), commenced this originating summons to obtain an order that the defendant, Wisanggeni Lauw (“Lauw”), comply with a Deed of Undertaking executed by the latter on 3 July 2002.

As Lauw failed to comply with MBB’s demand, the latter instituted these proceedings to have clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking enforced.8.

Lauw claimed that MBB’s originating summons ought to be converted to a writ because there are important facts which are disputed.

His assertion that he did not benefit from signing the Deed of Undertaking does not alter the position.

It is trite law that while consideration must be furnished by a party seeking to enforce a contract not under seal, the consideration offered need not move to the promisor.

Leave a Reply