KUALA LUMPUR (May 11): The list of investors who are taking beleaguered ACE Holdings Bhd to court for failing to deliver the investment returns they were promised is growing as another investor has filed a suit against them, seeking almost RM8.3 million from the company. 

The plaintiff, who wishes to remain unnamed, filed the suit in April against ACE Credit Sdn Bhd — a subsidiary of ACE Holdings — and two of its directors, claiming that she entered into four agreements with the company to invest a total of RM7 million, in the statement of claim sighted by The Edge.

The agreements were signed in 2019, and the plaintiff was promised annual returns of 12% on her investment.

However, ACE had failed to pay all the returns to the plaintiff, leading her to exercise her rights to early cancellation.

According to the statement of claim, ACE does not currently possess a valid moneylending licence as required under the Moneylenders Act 1951. 

The plaintiff contends that the substance of all four agreements requires ACE to maintain a valid licence during the tenure of the agreements and/or investments given that this formed the basis upon which the investments were sought. 

She further contends that ACE had committed a material breach of the agreements by allowing the licence to lapse and surrendering it to the Ministry of Local Government Development on the grounds of cessation of business.

On March 8, through the plaintiff’s solicitors, Messrs Haris Ibrahim Kandiah Partnership, a notice was sent to ACE, specifying the default and breaches and giving them 14 days to rectify it. 

The statement claims that ACE did not reply to the notice, which led the plaintiff’s solicitors to send a notice terminating all four agreements on March 24 of this year. 

Finally on April 24, ACE wrote to Messrs Haris Ibrahim Kandiah Partnership through its directors to say that they were allegedly in the midst of finalising their turn-around and restructuring plans, expecting fresh advances from new partners and at the tail end of negotiations with relevant parties, requesting additional time to sort things out. 

However, the plaintiff also found out that ACE has been sued by various investors for a return of the investment sum and for failure to pay the investment target returns where the agreements which form the basis of such suits are identical or almost identical to the four agreements she is pleading. 

The plaintiff is claiming that the two directors of the company are the controlling mind of the company and are involved in fraudulent activities to cheat investors. She is also seeking for the corporate veil of ACE to be lifted in order to attach liability on the two directors. 

The plaintiff is also claiming reliefs such as general damages, punitive damages and exemplary damages. 

Lawyer Eugene Jayaraj, who is acting for the plaintiff told The Edge that ACE and its two directors have yet to enter an appearance. 

He said that ACE has been served the writ on May 3 and they have until May 16 to respond and enter an appearance. As for the two directors, the lawyers have tried to serve them the writs by personal service three times and were not successful. 

“We will be applying for substitutes service,” he said. 

The next case management will be on May 24 before the court to update on service on the two directors. 

Earlier, ACE Holdings had filed a judicial management petition which is fixed for hearing before High Court judge Ahmad Murad Abdul Aziz on May 17.

Judicial management is a corporate rescue mechanism, where companies apply with the High Court to appoint a judicial manager for them when they are unable to pay their debts, creditors or directors.

ACE Holdings is facing action from the Securities Commission Malaysia for its recent attempt to take over Apex Equity Holdings Bhd, as well as suits from several investors over its failure to deliver investment returns.

The company is seeking for Datuk Robert Teo Keng Tuan from RSM Corporate Restructuring (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd to be appointed as its judicial manager, and to be placed under judicial management for six months.

It is also seeking to stay any winding-up proceedings or enforcement, detention or distress levied against the company or its properties, and for no order of winding up of the company to be made during the period.

The Edge had previously reported that ACE Group is facing a slew of suits by its investors.